Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

John Merryman

Tom,

"No physical event is real until measured."

"That's just another way of saying that perception is reality.

Demonstrably, it isn't."

For one thing, no, the perception isn't the reality, it's our perception of reality. Duh.

So you say nothing is real, unless it is measured, yet then turn around and say our perceptions are not reality? Are our senses not quantifying the input? No neural computations/measurements?

Either way, the event perceived or measured is the interaction of the transmission with either our senses, or the measuring device. Transmission and reception.

Is it really that hard to figure out, or you just cannot accept any logic on my part?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

Division by zero is a prohibited operation. No, we don't rigorously know why -- it's just that we can't have consistent arithmetic if we do so. However:

You have a 1-dimensional loaf of bread? Really? Then the zero point is where the lines of the bread and the knife intersect at 90 degrees. Akinbo, you really should follow Joy's advice to get that geometry book.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

" ... the perception isn't the reality, it's our perception of reality. Duh."

That being the case -- what are you perceiving?

"So you say nothing is real, unless it is measured, yet then turn around and say our perceptions are not reality?"

I do.

"Our senses not quantifying the input?"

They are not, either quantitatively or qualitatively. You see the moon. Do your senses tell you how much it weighs, or that you are sure it isn't made of green cheese?

"No neural computations/measurements?"

None that are objectively real.

John, your naive realism informs you that processing information is identical to creating it.

John Merryman

Tom,

" informs you that processing information is identical to creating it."

The only thing it is informing me of is that you cannot read. Transmission and reception.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Transmission and reception."

Everything is just that simple, right, John?

John Merryman

Tom,

It's as simple or complex as it needs to be. Obviously the reception of information/energy in any given context is only a fraction of what is transmitted, so it is only part of what the receiver works with. Information /energy gets radiated in all directions and is received from all directions, so there is no objective picture of totality. What we think of as objectivity is simply getting far enough away from a given context that seemingly it fits within our field of view/perspective. You describe it as a point at infinity, if I recall.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"What we think of as objectivity is simply getting far enough away from a given context that seemingly it fits within our field of view/perspective."

You'll have to speak for yourself, John. My view of objective reality is free of context.

"You describe it as a point at infinity, if I recall."

That's what I mean by free of context.

John Merryman

Tom,

"free of context."

That's what I would call the neutral state.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"'free of context.'

"That's what I would call the neutral state."

That's what I would call a context.

What we mean by context-free is a closed logical judgment that leaves no room to insert one's mind into the meaning of the phenomenon.

All empirical phenomena are burdened with context. All mathematically complete theories are free of context.

John Merryman

Tom,

It could also be argued the Mind of God is free of context.

Hidden assumptions remain hidden.

Regards,

John M.

Thomas Ray

"It could also be argued the Mind of God is free of context."

If you think you can successfully make that argument, John, I would be glad to hear it.

John Merryman

Tom,

Given the mind of a universal god is presumed to encompass everything, it would seem a logical conclusion there is no larger context. The presumption being there is a universal God.

Are there any presumptions built into math? I've been arguing in some other threads that points, to lines, to planes, to area, then a timeline, is not some fundamental architecture of nature, but our projecting out from the individual perspective and it's the natural social agreement on this view which is the basis of the presumption it is foundational.

I suspect you would have a different opinion.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Given the mind of a universal god is presumed to encompass everything, it would seem a logical conclusion there is no larger context."

Then it's not context free, is it? You assume a context.

John Merryman

Tom,

How so? In what larger context would a universal mind function? (Not allowing multiverses, as that would imply polytheism, which is heretical.)

Regards,

John m

Thomas Ray

John, when one specifies a context (mind of god or universal mind function as you put it) one assumes in physical terms some structure in which measurements can be made, independent of measurement results and independent of apparatus, whether a brain-mind or other processor of information. These are the cases with, e.g., quantum contextuality which depends on system or apparatus arrangements, and Dembski's intelligent design program which depends on what he calls specified complexity.

A truly universal objective structure, such as Joy Christian's framework, does not beg the question of whether a change in experimental protocols will change measured outcomes. In principle, a deterministic schema is robust -- all causally connected events correspond one for one without special conditions, because the measurement function is continuous. These correlations,as Joy has shown, survive even discrete random input to the function; the nonlinearity of the input function corresponds to what we know about self-organized complex systems that are coherent without external interference. If these local systems are self-similar to the global structure, the universe is deterministic without contextual constraints.

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

"one assumes in physical terms some structure in which measurements can be made, independent of measurement results and independent of apparatus, whether a brain-mind or other processor of information."

Presumably the mind of god would contain all input and well as process. Wouldn't be the 'all-knowing absolute' otherwise.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Presumably the mind of god would contain all input and well as process."

Then that would be a context, wouldn't it? Just like the context you assign to all your musings. An objective science, however, recognizes the independence of language and meaning.

John Merryman

Tom,

All my musings necessarily exist within the confines of my particular sense of self and context, just as any projection of any human mind must. That's why math projects space out from a point, not a void containing activity, as nature seems to.

I posted an interesting link on the cosmological cluster thread, about how measurements of space show it to be fundamentally flat, effectively indistinguishable from being infinite. That seems to be the ultimate context. Any patterns deduced within it necessarily arise within that elemental space.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"All my musings necessarily exist within the confines of my particular sense of self and context, just as any projection of any human mind must."

Exactly. Which is why they don't have anything to do with objective, rational science.

"That's why math projects space out from a point, not a void containing activity, as nature seems to."

Then you take that self-centered context to draw falsifiably incorrect conclusions about how mathematics works and how it relates to nature.

John Merryman

Tom,

Points, lines, planes, area started with Euclid. That was a really long time ago. Then it was cutting edge insight. He didn't have any high tech equipment to detect and measure the invisible. It is elemental stick figure modeling of space. The time dimension derives from narrative sequence. It has been attributed to Edgar Allen Poe for first equating duration to distance. You can tell me how uninformed I am all you want, but you don't go back and explain how these concepts actually derive from some physical reality beyond perceptual projection. The smallest thing we can measure are quanta of light and these fluctuate in order to occupy space. There are no lines and planes building from the point to the area. Nature requires energy to express information. No energy, no information. What Plato and monotheism overlook is the ideal is not elemental, but emergent.

Regards,

John M

« Previous Page Next Page »