Undecidability and unpredictability: not limitations, but triumphs of science by Markus P Mueller

Hi Markus,

I really liked your explanation of the philosophical significance of the incompleteness theorem, namely, that incompleteness of a theory signals that there are statements that cannot be proven nor disproven simply because the axioms that would allow one to generate such proofs are not present (or, equivalently, the theory can be differentiated and the status of the statement is different in the different subtheories). That certainly sounds right to me! How prevalent is this way of thinking about the incompleteness theorem? I haven't studied the literature on incompleteness, so I have no sense of whether or not this is "conventional wisdom" in some circles. Hofstadter, at least, does characterize the theorem in this manner in Godel, Escher, Bach (among the many ways that he characterizes it). Similarly, it seems to me that Chaitin does so as well. Did Godel think of it in this way?

In any case, very nice essay! I enjoyed it a lot.

A minor point. When you get to the analysis of quantum theory, you contrast your own view with the view that quantum states are states of knowledge about some kind of hidden variables. You call the latter "Spekkens-like interpretations". Presumably, that's because I've written many papers about subtheories of quantum theory and foils to quantum theory (such as my toy theory) that admit of such an interpretation. But the terminology makes me uneasy insofar as it may suggest to some that I endorse the view that such an interpretation might be possible *for the whole of quantum theory*, which I certainly do not. A better name for this type of interpretation of quantum theory would be "psi-epistemic hidden variable models". There are certainly some researchers who have made proposals of this type, but I am not enthusiastic about the research program because all such proposals have the same deficiencies as psi-ontic hidden variable models insofar as they necessarily fail to offer satisfactory causal explanations of quantum correlations. To grant that there are hidden variables to be discovered is to buy into the framework of ontological models, and I'm of the opinion that the correct interpretation of quantum theory must reject that framework. It seems to me that we need to pursue a rather different sort of realism, which is more "structural", exactly in the sense in which you use the term in your article (i.e., in the sense of "ontic structural realism"). In particular, I'm fond of the idea that the structure of causal relations might somehow capture everything about reality, without there being causal relata in the form of classical hidden variables (this idea was described in an FQXI essay I wrote a few years back). It seems to me that a denial of this kind of causal relata might in fact constitute a denial of the possibility of answering a question such as "what is the actual configuration of the world?" If so, then our views are not so different, at least in terms of the status of this sort of question.

I am reminded of my favourite quote by the pragmatist John Dewey: "The conviction persists, though history shows it be a hallucination, that all the questions that the human mind has asked are questions that can be answered in terms of the alternatives that the questions themselves present. But in fact, intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume, an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitalism and a change of urgent interest. We do not solve them, we get over them."

Congratulations Markus...

In that your essay focuses attention on the necessity for one's choice of a Space-Time Energy "theoretical structure" to be associated with Space, as a precisely defined and specified "Geometric Structure", it is pivotal, and I can concur with FQXi's acknowledgement of its significance.

"Geometric Structures" as 3D CAD environments, in which geometry specific fundamental Q-mechanical functions... e.g. emission and distribution mechanix... can be digitally simulated (CAD SIMs), augment visual verification of fundamental foundations, to facilitate precise definitions of semantic terminologies that become embedded in subsequent "theoretical structures".

REF: Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission Mechanix www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Is a minimum/indivisible quantum of Potential for Motion a "thing"?

A quantum Point Source Emission "theoretical structure", which is inclusive of Physics and Meta-Physics, is potentially viable, but one must first make a distinction between the term Physical and the term Meta-Physical.

To make a distinction between Physical and Meta-Physical, requires a precise definition of Physical that facilitates its identity as a subset within a larger set that is inclusive of other than Physical.

PHYSICAL entities are uniquely defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

If one defines PHYSICAL "things" as discrete entities having spatial occupancy, one will need to define Space as a "Geometric Structure"... i.e. preferably as a 3D quantized CAD spatial environment... that facilitates an emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution of Physical entities, which is consistent with observation... i.e. recognizable "patterns" of spatially quantized Potential for Motion emerge.

A minimum/indivisible pulse duration... i.e. a Q-Tick...is required to facilitate a Timeless Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) in which to repeatedly resolve spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of all pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion... i.e. emission and subsequent spatial distribution of pulsed, spatially discrete Energy quanta (QE)... within the entire field.

To digitally SIMulate emission pulse sourced motion, as CAD environment, x,y,z discrete Physical entity location incrimination, in a theoretical, temporally minimum/indivisible duration, one needs to define the SIM frame rate as the emergent Physical entity emission pulse count... i.e. pulse count as the minimum/indivisible quanta of discrete Time (QT)... and doing so, implies that a perception of time is spatially dependent.

If Meta-Physical is differentiated from Physical by means of a spatial occupancy criteria, then Meta-Physical operatives require a Spaceless Logic Structure.

Does a feeling of spatial occupancy, occupy Space?

To define META-PHYSICAL as other than that which occupies Space-Time, a dimensionless logic environment in which Spaceless-Timeless operatives/mechanix... e.g. a feeling.... are consistent with observation, is required to coherently integrate Physics and Meta-Physics in a quantum "theoretical structure".

From a Space-Time Geometry Singularity... i.e.. a 3D "geometric structure" which encapsulates a single dimensionless point... the root architecture for an intelligent network... i.e. Cosmic Consciousness... emerges as the logic codec between the Spaceless-Timeless Logic framework and the Space-Time Logic framework, and given a logic codec integration of these two discrete logic evaluation frameworks, the ability for Meta-Physical operatives to resolve Physical entity emission mechanix, and for Physical entities to influence Meta-Physical operatives, are potential fundamental mechanisms, and justify investigation.

In which logic framework is Space-Time Energy quanta (QE) distribution resolved by Laplace's demon?

If from a Spaceless-Timeless logic framework, Laplace's demon could "feel" the QE occupancy of each individual minimum/indivisible unit of discrete Space (QI), within the entire field... i.e. "know" Space-Time as a Spaceless feeling of Timeless now... and utilize the Spaceless-Timeless/Space-Time codec... i.e. cosmic intelligence,.. to spontaneously, harmoniously resolve the QE/QI re-configuration for the entire field, within each pulse interval of one timeless Q-tick.

If a CAD modeled "geometric structure" in which QE emission and distribution SIMs verify a fundamental PROCESS that resolves spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI occupancy for the entire field, on each Q-Tick, and facilitates a codec for Space-Time entities to query cosmic intelligence at any Time "now", is installed as an upgrade to prior concepts of Demon, and/or God ENTITIES, a structural change in human consciousness is facilitated.

Can one "know" the QE occupancy configuration of the entire QI space-Time Energy field on any Q-Tick?

If the analysis structure constrains one's query, a "question without an answer" does NOT dissolve the question, and although Physical limits on current CAD SIM computability restrict the field frame, the "geometric structure" and initial state emission mechanix are verifiable within those constraints... i.e. available QI address path dictates and valid mechanix to facilitate unprecedented solution reduction in Quantum Energy (QE) analysis within any subsequent purturbative... i.e. without verifiable unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... frame of the QE/QI field, can be inferred.

One can not dismiss the possibility to "know" the individual QE/QI occupancy configuration for the entire field, on any QT, without first eliminating any possibility of resolving a CAD "geometric structure" in which QE emission and subsequent distribution SIMs verify spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI resolve on each QT, and the impossibility of knowing whether that is possible, can only be dissolved by doing so.

Geometry analysis of fundamental motion mechanix, without resolve of a Geometry Singularity... i.e. point source encapsulation... is inherently purturbative.

Fundamental PROCESS resolved QE/QI choreographies/patterns, as logic circuits which are infinitely scalable within the field... e.g. humans... that purturbatively monitor and data process Space-Time Energy observations are unable to verify a cosmic intelligence, and with regard to a fundamental PROCESS, are tolerating "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability".

Given a causality model that is neither deterministic nor random... i.e. one in which on every pulse, the QE/QI configuration of the entire system must be resolved on the basis of internal agent/circuit monitoring... if the functionality of the monitoring circuit is inhibited by "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability", the agent/circuit will experience confusion, and may induce local disharmony.

"Can one "know" if event A and event B are simultaneous?"

Not if one's analysis is constrained to a rubber sheet "geometric structure" in which Space and Time are continuous, and Energy is a numerical representation of a qualitative physical property measurement... e.g. heat... associated with an observable event in which neither Space nor Time is discrete... i.e. Energy is NOT a spatially defined entity.

As inferred by E=mc^2, PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) as an accelerated Mass observation quantifier, does NOT facilitate an analysis of an "event" as motion, in terms of CAD environment x,y,z location incrimination of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, within a theoretical minimum/indivisible temporal duration... i.e. PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) must be differentiated from spatially discrete Energy (QE) in a quantum model.

A visual comparative of two temporally sequential snapshots, of discrete QE occupancy within discrete QI, is required to verify motion A and motion B are simultaneous... i.e. both occur within 1 Q-Tick.

If one utilizes a "geometric structure" in which static Space is quantized by QI, Time is measured in Q-Ticks (QT), and Potential for Motion is spontaneously, harmoniously distributed as continuously pulse sourced QE... i.e. Space, Time, and Energy are discrete elements of the model... simultaneous QE motion events are inherent.

To "know" that a motion event experienced by spatial entity A, and a motion event experienced by spatial entity B, are simultaneous, is facilitated by a visual comparison of two sequential freeze frames... i.e. 1 Q-Tick... of the emission SIM.

Utilization of "statistical patterns" as a semantic unifier to achieve "integration of both views"... i.e. probabilistic entanglement and discrete functionality... evades the necessity to acknowledge observations of Meta-Physical operatives influencing Physical entities, and vice versa.

As currently practiced... i.e. without verification of an unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... FUNDAMENTAL investigation by means of statistical analysis, escalate "Undecideablity, Unpredictability, and Uncomputability", inducing a credibility barrier, and inhibit utilization of observable Meta-Physical operatives to resolve inability to "know".

I have repeatedly recorded an experiment that verifies the outcome of a flip of a coin is influenced by a sufficiently enhanced QE choreographed logic agent's/circuit's... e.g. human's... binary query of the cosmic intelligence, which suggest that the root architecture of the cosmic intelligence, as the network element of the PROCESS, allows Physical entities and Meta-Physical operatives to interact, and a valid FUNDAMENTAL PROCSES model must facilitate this exchange functionality.

In that a demonstrable CAD SIM resolve of spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion, promotes creditability for Physical and Meta-Physical integration, and visually resolves fundamental mechanix which enable statistical analysis of FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES as required to enhance human Physical and Meta-Physical design and functionality, thereby accelerating technological developments and applications, an upgrade from prior reliance on statistical purturbative analysis as a means to explore FUNDAMENTAL territory, is justifiable.

In that the dynamics and functionality of QE choreographies... i.e. Physical "patterns"... which emerge as a result of spontaneous, harmonious resolve of a pulsed emission and subsequent distribution of Potential for Motion, within addressable,... i.e. uniformly defined, static and discrete... minimum/indivisible spatial units (QI) of a quantized "geometric structure", are inherited from a FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS.. i.e. the initial state emission mechanix as dictated by the QI address path potential of the Point Source Singularity quantization... all dynamics and functionality of subsequent QE choreographies, postulated by "theoretical structures" must map to the quantization of the associated "geometric structure".

Given that "correct" implies Physical and Meta-Physical integration, "to discover the correct geometric structure", requires resolve of a Geometry Singularity quantization which as the root architecture of a networked intelligence, facilitates a codec... i.e. logic unification... between the Spaceless-Timeless and Space-Time logic structures, and resolves continuous emergence of dynamic "patterns"... i.e. QE choreographies... which are consistent with observations both Physical and Meta-Physical.

"3D physical bounded spaces in motion render 'space-time' and 'wire frame' Cartesian systems inadequate modeling tools. Yet we agree Minkowski; "Everywhere there is substance". (1906)." ~ 2019 FQXi Essay REF:TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

Consensus with regard to a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" is difficult to obtain, and a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" does not necessarily imply a "hole" in an associated "geometric structure".

As a means to validate theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, as elements within the "geometric structure", the ability to see broken kinematic logic chains as discontinuities in SIMulatied PROCESSES within the CAD "geometric structure", is pivotal.

The question "What are the properties of aether?", if analyzed within the constraints of a "geometric structure" in which Space is continuous, may have no answers, but if aether is the quantization geometry of the "geometric structure"... i.e. the intelligence element of all FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES... aether properties can be associated with the uniform minimum/indivisible discrete quanta (QI) of fixed addressable spatial QE containment.

In that digital CAD SIMs analysis facilitate virtual visual verification of theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, if as above, Physical is differentiated from Meta-Physical by a spatial occupancy criteria, ambiguities emerging from Meta-Physical entities and operative as indistinguishable from immeasurable Physical entities and operatives, is resolved.

"We can know what there is to be known.", but Physical limits do not infer a limit on what can be extracted as knowledge from an integration of Physical and Meta-Physical functions of "knowing", and therefor I can not agree that questions not yet solved, dissolve.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Ha ha, I can tell this is sheer bullshit just by reading the abstract alone.

You write:

", I argue to replace this perspective by a worldview in which a structural notion of 'real patterns', not 'things' are regarded as fundamental"

Now, epistemically this is identical to saying:

", I argue to replace this perspective by a worldview in which "Jesus Christ is my saviour" should be regarded as fundamental."

And they give first prize to such nonsense? Its pathetic. Why dont people make way for people who actually know something about these subjects? That would be a radical change woukdnt it?

Hi Alec,

I'd be very interested to hear why you think an experimentalist commitment to a form of objective realism based on Dennett's notion of 'real patterns'--or notions of ontic structural realism, or wave function realism for that matter--is 'epistemologically identical' to a profession of faith in the gospels' Yeshu.

I take it you place your faith in a metaphysics of 'objective reality' based on discrete things/particles in a classical spacetime as opposed to ... a faith based empirical belief in an information/theoretic 'it from bit' reality? Or somesuch?

I personally can't see the religious connection, but then I'm a philosophical agnostic who also upvoted Mueller's excellent essay on structural realism in quantum foundations.

Regards,

Malcolm Riddoch