What kills Schrödinger’s cat?

Lorraine Ford

Michael Blasco
I think you should perhaps stick to philosophy, because you are certainly not able to unpick the mechanics of mathematics.

I have used no straw-man arguments: that is just your assertion, your imagination.

Michael Blasco

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, just as I predicted earlier, you are now resorting to AD HOMINEM ATTACKS rather than addressing the fundamental weaknesses in your argument. Questioning my mathematical competence does absolutely nothing to establish the validity of your claims. Personal attacks are not mathematical proofs, and dismissing criticism does not make it disappear.

You repeatedly insist that physical reality must manipulate numerical values or move to the “next number,” despite my explicitly rejecting that premise throughout this discussion.

THAT IS THE STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT YOU KEEP RECYCLING.

As I have stated countless times, in my model physical transformations are hypothesized to arise from the intrinsic nonlinear dynamics of an underlying physical substrate. Mathematics describes those transformations but does not physically cause them.

YOU ARE STILL CONFLATING MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS WITH PHYSICAL MECHANISMS.

You assume physical change consists of numerical assignments, assume those assignments require an external agent, and then present that agent as a mathematical necessity.

YOU CANNOT ESTABLISH A CONCLUSION BY SIMPLY ASSUMING THE PREMISES THAT GUARANTEE IT.

So instead of questioning my competence, answer the fundamental question you continue avoiding:

WHAT MATHEMATICAL OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT PHYSICAL CHANGE NECESSARILY REQUIRES AN EXTERNAL AGENT TO ASSIGN NUMBERS?

If you believe my reasoning is incorrect then demonstrate precisely where it fails. Otherwise, stop substituting personal attacks, straw-man arguments, circular logic, and repeated assertions for actual scientific justification.

An argument does not become stronger because its author becomes more insulting, and an unsupported premise does not become a scientific fact through endless repetition.

Michael Blasco

Steve Dufourny Hi again Steve. The problem isn’t that people have difficulty understanding Lorraine’s argument. The problem is that she has repeatedly and failed to demonstrate the logical necessity of its central assumption. She assumes that physical change fundamentally consists of numerical assignments or “quantum number jumps” that require some external agent. But she has never established that physical reality literally operates by assigning numbers in the first place.

In my Nonlinear Vacuum Medium framework, physical transformations are hypothesized to arise from the intrinsic NONLINEAR dynamics of an underlying physical substrate (non-mechanical, nonclassical aether). Mathematics describes those transformations but it does not physically cause them. The substrate does not need to understand equations, manipulate numerical symbols, or possess consciousness to undergo physical change.

You cannot simply assume that physical dynamics require a numerical assignment agent and then declare that agent logically necessary. That is precisely the unsupported premise being challenged.

Furthermore, quantum transitions are not evidence that some conscious or external entity is assigning numbers to reality. That interpretation would require independent mathematical and empirical justification.

Understanding an argument does not obligate anyone to accept its premises. And when multiple people identify the same fundamental logical weakness then perhaps the problem isn’t their inability to understand the argument, but the argument’s inability to withstand scrutiny.

That’s the real problem.

Regards,
Michael

Lorraine Ford

Michael Blasco
More lengthy and noisy bluster.

I’m saying that manmade mathematics itself requires “quantum number jumps”, BY something or someone. The number jump (i.e. number assignment) movement/ action can be represented algorithmically, but the "something or someone" that does the movement/ action can't be represented algorithmically.

The mathematical and algorithmic symbols do not represent what knows the mathematics, and what moves the mathematics. But a viable moving system can only be represented via the use of algorithmic statements that represent knowledge of the mathematical situations, and represent movement of the mathematical situations, in response to this knowledge.

Michael Blasco

Lorraine Ford Dismissing my response as “noisy bluster” does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental flaws in your argument. YOU ARE STILL CONFLATING MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATIONS WITH PHYSICAL REALITY.

Yes, humans manipulate mathematical symbols, and executing algorithms requires physical processes. NOBODY IS DISPUTING THAT. But you repeatedly make the same unjustified leap: because humans manipulate mathematical symbols then physical reality itself must possess something that knows mathematics and assigns numerical values. THAT CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM YOUR PREMISES.

You keep inserting knowledge and numerical assignments into your description of physical reality and then presenting them as fundamental necessities without demonstrating why they must exist. THAT IS AN UNSUPPORTED ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION AND NOT A MATHEMATICAL PROOF.

So answer the question you continue avoiding:

WHAT MATHEMATICAL OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT PHYSICAL CHANGE NECESSARILY REQUIRES AN ENTITY THAT KNOWS MATHEMATICS AND ASSIGNS NUMBERS?

Don’t give me another false analogy about human mathematicians or another ad hominem insult. GIVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE OR A VALID LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION.

REPETITION IS NOT PROOF. ASSERTION IS NOT EVIDENCE. AND CONDESCENSION WILL NEVER TRANSFORM YOUR UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS INTO SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

« Previous Page