Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 9/27/21 at 19:48pm UTC, wrote Broken machine: What do[es] I see next? The I that was, E.I, has not been...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/27/21 at 0:43am UTC, wrote I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/27/21 at 0:37am UTC, wrote Invalid because what M.I sees first, as a novel being, does not qualify as...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/27/21 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Invalid because what M.I sees first, as a novel being, does not qualify as...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/26/21 at 18:56pm UTC, wrote Hi Markus, the Guinea pigs 'paradox' raises the question; What is I? Is the...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/26/21 at 2:53am UTC, wrote Hi Markus, ​ In regard to "what is seen next?" David Eagleman has a...

Georgina Woodward: on 9/26/21 at 2:34am UTC, wrote Hi Markus, thank you for sharing your ideas. Re. the Guinea pigs copies,...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/25/21 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Markus and the other participants, Isn’t there something very wrong with...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Amrit Sorli: "We have only 2 times in the universe: - psychological time that has its..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jim, David, Amrit, I agree in the sense that this time is a kind of..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "Hi S. David Coleman, It`s my contention that time does not..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Without a free particle moving with the wire’s electron's, just to judge..." in The Present State of...

Lorraine Ford: "The minimum requirement for any mathematical system. Remember? Remember all..." in Consciousness and the...

olivier denis: ""I d like to know more about your general philosophy of this universe, what..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Olivier, I try to understand why we have this problem of mass of protons..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Here are ideas for the quantum computing the real secret is to converge..." in The Quantum Refrigerator


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.


FQXi BLOGS
December 3, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Room in the Elephant: From Undecidability as Undifferentiation to Physics by Markus Müller [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Markus P Mueller wrote on Sep. 21, 2021 @ 20:05 GMT
Talk by Markus Müller (Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information)

Mini-Workshop Website: https://harvardfop.jacobbarandes.com/...

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPRe...

Harvard Foundations of Physics Workshop Series

Mini-Workshop on Probability and Undecidability

December 15, 2020



Keywords: #undecidability #predictability #intelligence

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 22, 2021 @ 22:53 GMT
Markus,

I think you are over complexifying everything. I can only repeat my post on the topic of “The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science” (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3698):

Physics and mathematics are full of bad ideas. Like the idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops and eventually turns into people, and other living things.

Funny about that, because the only known mathematical systems only exist in the minds of people: people conjure them up in their minds; people represent them with special symbols; people differentiate the special symbols; people manipulate the symbols.

Mathematics only exists because people create symbols, and differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and move the symbols. People are the main component of mathematics.

Undeterred, physics and mathematics have come up with the bad idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops, a mathematical system without the element provided by people. I.e. WITHOUT the element that differentiates the system and WITHOUT the element that moves the system.

This is the current state of physics and mathematics: physicists and mathematicians have never noticed that it is PEOPLE doing physics and mathematics. Physicists and mathematicians need to extricate themselves from their symbolic systems. And the way to extricate themselves is to add an element that differentiates their systems, and an element that moves their systems. This element can only be symbolically represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

There are necessary elements of a system that can only be symbolically represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 25, 2021 @ 22:18 GMT
Markus and the other participants,

Isn’t there something very wrong with the idea that a brainless mathematical system at the foundations of the universe can do all the things that only a human mathematician can do?

The fact is that people/ mathematicians are the MAIN COMPONENT of mathematics: people use special symbols; people differentiate (discern difference in) the special symbols; people manipulate the special symbols.

Clearly, if you want to have a STANDALONE system at the foundations of the universe, that can be represented by the symbols of mathematics and physics, then from the start, you also need symbols representing the system differentiating itself (discerning difference in its own equations, variables and numbers), and you also need symbols representing the system moving itself (assigning new numbers to the variables). The additional symbols are necessary if you want to extricate human beings from the system.

But it’s not just the symbols, it’s the recognition that there are additional, separate, but necessary, aspects of ANY system: 1) the aspect that differentiates (discerns difference); and 2) the aspect that moves the system.

I know it’s not just you guys. But where are those additional symbols (which can only be Boolean and algorithmic symbols)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 26, 2021 @ 02:34 GMT
Hi Markus, thank you for sharing your ideas.

Re. the Guinea pigs copies, one continuing on Earth and one coming to be on Mars: "what will I see next?" doesn't seem adequate. As it does not take in to account that there is no longer a singular I. There is Earth's I and Mars' I. The question needs to apply to both. So what I see branches into E.I and M.I. Which are both (from their perspective) continuations of I, but mutually exclusive of each other. ​

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 26, 2021 @ 02:53 GMT
Hi Markus, ​

In regard to "what is seen next?" David Eagleman has a video on YouTube, called The brain and The Now, taking about the timing of perception, including how the brain can wait for input before the generated Observation product becomes awareness. Allowing synchronization of different kinds of sensory input. This is evidence that the worlds experienced by A, B and C are different self generated realities. The question (In your talk), "What at some given moment is the actual configuration of the World?" is shown. I'd say it is the configuration of existing beables, that precede all sensory perception, and measurement outcomes disturbing the configuration. That prevents our access to the underlying source reality. Our senses are allowing generation of an approximate, Impoverished model after the fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 26, 2021 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi Markus, the Guinea pigs 'paradox' raises the question; What is I? Is the subjective feeling/conscious experience of I-ness enough to be genuinely I? Where does that place the deluded and or those that might have false memories? Would that make just thinking you are I into genuine I, when that isn't intended by the 'subjective' definition. So does I-ness have to be associated with an individual material body as well? That makes the E.I g.pig genuine I, and M.I g.pig pseudo I. Even if identical to E.I it is not the same individual material body. In the same way that identical twins when born are not the same I, but think and are aware individually. In this way a copy is only ever pseudo I even though from its perspective it feels/has the conscious experience of being genuinely I. In the normal operation of the machine genuine I is destroyed and pseudo I is formed. "What does I see next?" under these circumstances? The I that was sees nothing. The new M.I is a novel being, whos response is invalid.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 27, 2021 @ 00:37 GMT
Invalid because what M.I sees first, as a novel being, does not qualify as next. M.I only thinks it has seen things previously because of inbuilt memories.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Sep. 27, 2021 @ 00:15 GMT
Invalid because what M.I sees first, as a novel being, does not qualify as next. M.I only thinks it has seen things previously because of inbuilt memories.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 27, 2021 @ 00:43 GMT
I've copied the comment to the thread where it belongs. This orphan can be deleted.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.