|
Post by spooky on Jun 22, 2019 13:51:44 GMT -5
Nice ty this is a great link to have at hand.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 22, 2019 13:54:43 GMT -5
Stumbled on this also, didn't have time to look at yet.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 23, 2019 1:44:22 GMT -5
The basic issue with particles is their relationship with information, particularly (see what I did there), the limits with which information can be used, and although this does imply a limit to knowledge, let alone implying subjectivity as a fundamental universal property, we can only really claim a particle's (and by extension the universe's) existence in terms of interactivity, and contextualise it with our measurements. In that observation is integral to the nature of the particle, we cannot believe in pure objectivity in the materialist sense, and have resorted to information theories to articulate quantum systems which are fundamentally uncertain. Now it seems the answer to our most fundamental questions is 'it depends'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2019 3:43:25 GMT -5
The basic issue with particles is their relationship with information, particularly (see what I did there), the limits with which information can be used, and although this does imply a limit to knowledge, let alone implying subjectivity as a fundamental universal property, we can only really claim a particle's (and by extension the universe's) existence in terms of interactivity, and contextualise it with our measurements. In that observation is integral to the nature of the particle, we cannot believe in pure objectivity in the materialist sense, and have resorted to information theories to articulate quantum systems which are fundamentally uncertain. Now it seems the answer to our most fundamental questions is 'it depends'. Yes, excellent point. But, basing a concept of reality on top of a concept of information has other roots than finding a "realist alternative" to material realism. There was this guy, Shannon, who worked for the phone company, and came up with some really cool ways to optimize the resources needed to make calls sound clear, and this led to mathematical models of energy in terms of information that were not only quite elegant and novel, but eminently practical. He likely had some earlier cultural influences -- don't know, haven't looked into that -- but one of the most interesting philosophical speculations that I've ever read, and that seems to me as at least related - if not based - on "reality-as-information", is the human genome as a multi-billon-year result of the Earth's environment encoding itself through the media of DNA. It's all very beautiful in it's intricacy, and quite endless in it's possibility, but what I love most about the milestone of the 1927 Solvay Conference is that it confronts metaphsycians with the bald-faced limit that nothing they observe can define what it is that they are. This is something the spiritual traditions have related as knowledge for centuries prior: nothing that appears to you is what you are, as there is no perception that doesn't involve limitation, while what you are, is eternal and unbounded, and thereby can never make an appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 7:44:10 GMT -5
The basic issue with particles is their relationship with information, particularly (see what I did there), the limits with which information can be used, and although this does imply a limit to knowledge, let alone implying subjectivity as a fundamental universal property, we can only really claim a particle's (and by extension the universe's) existence in terms of interactivity, and contextualise it with our measurements. In that observation is integral to the nature of the particle, we cannot believe in pure objectivity in the materialist sense, and have resorted to information theories to articulate quantum systems which are fundamentally uncertain. Now it seems the answer to our most fundamental questions is 'it depends'. Yes, excellent point. But, basing a concept of reality on top of a concept of information has other roots than finding a "realist alternative" to material realism. There was this guy, Shannon, who worked for the phone company, and came up with some really cool ways to optimize the resources needed to make calls sound clear, and this led to mathematical models of energy in terms of information that were not only quite elegant and novel, but eminently practical. He likely had some earlier cultural influences -- don't know, haven't looked into that -- but one of the most interesting philosophical speculations that I've ever read, and that seems to me as at least related - if not based - on "reality-as-information", is the human genome as a multi-billon-year result of the Earth's environment encoding itself through the media of DNA. It's all very beautiful in it's intricacy, and quite endless in it's possibility, but what I love most about the milestone of the 1927 Solvay Conference is that it confronts metaphsycians with the bald-faced limit that nothing they observe can define what it is that they are. This is something the spiritual traditions have related as knowledge for centuries prior: nothing that appears to you is what you are, as there is no perception that doesn't involve limitation, while what you are, is eternal and unbounded, and thereby can never make an appearance. < ** Eyes roll backward in skull. ** >
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 7:54:06 GMT -5
Dubious about more spatial dimensions expaining away quantum weirdness. This is a commonly postulated concept. There's the rub our brains can't conceptualize in more than three. For what it's worth Poincare thought three was not enough. I need a year to think about this one. Think of it (higher dimensions) in terms of speed of vibrations. Consider "Seths" world. Consider "the Kingdom of Heaven" that is present, here, now (within you). Consider radio waves (and x-rays and gamma Ray's, etc.) which we knew nothing about until we had instruments that could measure them. A higher dimension is just a higher energy level, energy vibrating at such a speed we cannot measure. This is beyond Planck's minimum quantum level. Both time and space are quantized. That doesn't mean "reality" ends at the quantum level. It means reality "picks up" ~on the other side-of~ our ordinary human capacity, at a higher rate of vibration. Dimensions are quantized. That us, there is a quantum gap between dimensions. That is, each dimension ~seems~ to go-to infinity, but there are essentially infinities within infinities, each new higher dimension is an infinity within an infinity (at a higher level of energy, a yet higher vibration), each new higher dimension would have a "quantum-{like} limit", a gap. A higher dimension would be ~similar-to~ our world. "Seth's world" is an example. Like our world, but also not-like our world. Our world is a shadow (less real) of a higher world. Need time to respond here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2019 8:08:59 GMT -5
Yes, excellent point. But, basing a concept of reality on top of a concept of information has other roots than finding a "realist alternative" to material realism. There was this guy, Shannon, who worked for the phone company, and came up with some really cool ways to optimize the resources needed to make calls sound clear, and this led to mathematical models of energy in terms of information that were not only quite elegant and novel, but eminently practical. He likely had some earlier cultural influences -- don't know, haven't looked into that -- but one of the most interesting philosophical speculations that I've ever read, and that seems to me as at least related - if not based - on "reality-as-information", is the human genome as a multi-billon-year result of the Earth's environment encoding itself through the media of DNA. It's all very beautiful in it's intricacy, and quite endless in it's possibility, but what I love most about the milestone of the 1927 Solvay Conference is that it confronts metaphsycians with the bald-faced limit that nothing they observe can define what it is that they are. This is something the spiritual traditions have related as knowledge for centuries prior: nothing that appears to you is what you are, as there is no perception that doesn't involve limitation, while what you are, is eternal and unbounded, and thereby can never make an appearance. < ** Eyes roll backward in skull. ** > (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2019 9:06:03 GMT -5
Think of it (higher dimensions) in terms of speed of vibrations. Consider "Seths" world. Consider "the Kingdom of Heaven" that is present, here, now (within you). Consider radio waves (and x-rays and gamma Ray's, etc.) which we knew nothing about until we had instruments that could measure them. A higher dimension is just a higher energy level, energy vibrating at such a speed we cannot measure. This is beyond Planck's minimum quantum level. Both time and space are quantized. That doesn't mean "reality" ends at the quantum level. It means reality "picks up" ~on the other side-of~ our ordinary human capacity, at a higher rate of vibration. Dimensions are quantized. That us, there is a quantum gap between dimensions. That is, each dimension ~seems~ to go-to infinity, but there are essentially infinities within infinities, each new higher dimension is an infinity within an infinity (at a higher level of energy, a yet higher vibration), each new higher dimension would have a "quantum-{like} limit", a gap. A higher dimension would be ~similar-to~ our world. "Seth's world" is an example. Like our world, but also not-like our world. Our world is a shadow (less real) of a higher world. Need time to respond here. Oh sure...thanks for that much... (I've been considering these things for 50 years, as I "cut my teeth" on Theosophical literature {as in The Theosophical Society} starting at the age of 17-18). This is basically fractal in nature. If you look at the whole universe, it can be based on octaves. Do-si(or ti) as 1-7 repeats with a new do, do-do is an octave (8). But within the space of a "note", is an inner octave (between do-re there is a "fractal" octave do-do. Repeat). And so the inner octaves are this higher rate of vibration. And the repeat is a yet higher rate of vibration. Each inner octave is a *self-contained* "infinity".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 9:43:07 GMT -5
Need time to respond here. Oh sure...thanks for that much... (I've been considering these things for 50 years, as I "cut my teeth" on Theosophical literature {as in The Theosophical Society} starting at the age of 17-18). This is basically fractal in nature. If you look at the whole universe, it can be based on octaves. Do-si(or ti) as 1-7 repeats with a new do, do-do is an octave (8). But within the space of a "note", is an inner octave (between do-re there is a "fractal" octave do-do. Repeat). And so the inner octaves are this higher rate of vibration. And the repeat is a yet higher rate of vibration. Each inner octave is a *self-contained* "infinity". So you have a slinky walking on a plane. To the two dimensional creatures on this plane the slinky ends appear and disappear. So far so good. But the uniformity and consistency of this appearance and disappearance implies a path or trajectory. There is no such thing when we try to predict expected values of position for particles via Schrodinger's equation. The slinky would have to be quite magical to accomodate all probable outcomes. Just a thought, to play devil's advocate.
|
|
|
Post by spooky on Jun 23, 2019 18:13:53 GMT -5
Oh sure...thanks for that much... (I've been considering these things for 50 years, as I "cut my teeth" on Theosophical literature {as in The Theosophical Society} starting at the age of 17-18). This is basically fractal in nature. If you look at the whole universe, it can be based on octaves. Do-si(or ti) as 1-7 repeats with a new do, do-do is an octave (8). But within the space of a "note", is an inner octave (between do-re there is a "fractal" octave do-do. Repeat). And so the inner octaves are this higher rate of vibration. And the repeat is a yet higher rate of vibration. Each inner octave is a *self-contained* "infinity". So you have a slinky walking on a plane. To the two dimensional creatures on this plane the slinky ends appear and disappear. So far so good. But the uniformity and consistency of this appearance and disappearance implies a path or trajectory. There is no such thing when we try to predict expected values of position for particles via Schrodinger's equation. The slinky would have to be quite magical to accomodate all probable outcomes. Just a thought, to play devil's advocate. That's a really good point but what we recognize as random may not be random we just might not be able to see enough to extrapolate the pattern. Jusy another thought.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2019 21:31:47 GMT -5
Oh sure...thanks for that much... (I've been considering these things for 50 years, as I "cut my teeth" on Theosophical literature {as in The Theosophical Society} starting at the age of 17-18). This is basically fractal in nature. If you look at the whole universe, it can be based on octaves. Do-si(or ti) as 1-7 repeats with a new do, do-do is an octave (8). But within the space of a "note", is an inner octave (between do-re there is a "fractal" octave do-do. Repeat). And so the inner octaves are this higher rate of vibration. And the repeat is a yet higher rate of vibration. Each inner octave is a *self-contained* "infinity". So you have a slinky walking on a plane. To the two dimensional creatures on this plane the slinky ends appear and disappear. So far so good. But the uniformity and consistency of this appearance and disappearance implies a path or trajectory. There is no such thing when we try to predict expected values of position for particles via Schrodinger's equation. The slinky would have to be quite magical to accomodate all probable outcomes. Just a thought, to play devil's advocate. That's a very good analogy. I agree with spooky, there is no objective multiverse where all probabilities are actualized. Superpositions are probabilities, they exist thusly in the sixth dimension. (The fifth dimension is a record of all probabilities which were actualized in time, the collapse of the wave function of every moment in time). So the 6th dimension consists of multiple branching possibilities (described by the Schrodinger equation). When a single branch is actualized in time it simultaneously becomes a *living* record in the 5th dimension. This would be a kind-of form of a block universe, kind-of because not precisely, because the future is open. Meaning, yes, time is real. ...So, no, the path of the slinky is not determined, there are probable possibilities. So I have named the 6th dimension alternity. I speculate the 7th dimension exists as what's not probable, or even seemingly impossible. A kind of jumping across branches in a nonlinear fashion. ...
|
|
|
Post by spooky on Jun 23, 2019 21:41:25 GMT -5
So you have a slinky walking on a plane. To the two dimensional creatures on this plane the slinky ends appear and disappear. So far so good. But the uniformity and consistency of this appearance and disappearance implies a path or trajectory. There is no such thing when we try to predict expected values of position for particles via Schrodinger's equation. The slinky would have to be quite magical to accomodate all probable outcomes. Just a thought, to play devil's advocate. That's a very good analogy. I agree with spooky, there is no objective multiverse where all probabilities are actualized. Superpositions are probabilities, they exist thusly in the sixth dimension. (The fifth dimension is a record of all probabilities which were actualized in time, the collapse of the wave function of every moment in time). So the 6th dimension consists of multiple branching possibilities (described by the Schrodinger equation). When a single branch is actualized in time it simultaneously becomes a *living* record in the 5th dimension. This would be a kind-of form of a block universe, kind-of because not precisely, because the future is open. Meaning, yes, time is real. ...So, no, the path of the slinky is not determined, there are probable possibilities. So I have named the 6th dimension alternity. I speculate the 7th dimension exists as what's not probable, or even seemingly impossible. A kind of jumping across branches in a nonlinear fashion. ... I live the term alternity, that is a great description.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2019 21:43:24 GMT -5
So you have a slinky walking on a plane. To the two dimensional creatures on this plane the slinky ends appear and disappear. So far so good. But the uniformity and consistency of this appearance and disappearance implies a path or trajectory. There is no such thing when we try to predict expected values of position for particles via Schrodinger's equation. The slinky would have to be quite magical to accomodate all probable outcomes. Just a thought, to play devil's advocate. That's a really good point but what we recognize as random may not be random we just might not be able to see enough to extrapolate the pattern. Jusy another thought. Precisely. We can't see deep enough or far enough into the branching (6-D), nor imagine nonlinear hopping (7-D).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2019 21:44:54 GMT -5
That's a very good analogy. I agree with spooky, there is no objective multiverse where all probabilities are actualized. Superpositions are probabilities, they exist thusly in the sixth dimension. (The fifth dimension is a record of all probabilities which were actualized in time, the collapse of the wave function of every moment in time). So the 6th dimension consists of multiple branching possibilities (described by the Schrodinger equation). When a single branch is actualized in time it simultaneously becomes a *living* record in the 5th dimension. This would be a kind-of form of a block universe, kind-of because not precisely, because the future is open. Meaning, yes, time is real. ...So, no, the path of the slinky is not determined, there are probable possibilities. So I have named the 6th dimension alternity. I speculate the 7th dimension exists as what's not probable, or even seemingly impossible. A kind of jumping across branches in a nonlinear fashion. ... I live the term alternity, that is a great description. I'm pretty sure I stole that from John C Lilly.
|
|
|
Post by spooky on Jun 23, 2019 21:45:42 GMT -5
I live the term alternity, that is a great description. I'm pretty sure I stole that from John C Lilly. Your honorable enough to admit it
|
|