**From:** J. Andrew Rogers (*andrew@ceruleansystems.com*)

**Date:** Fri May 28 2004 - 01:17:56 MDT

**Next message:**Metaqualia: "qualia explained - FINAL ;)"**Previous message:**Philip Sutton: "RE: Random Mandarin"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Something Fishy"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Something Fishy"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Something Fishy (was: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On May 27, 2004, at 8:19 PM, Marc Geddes wrote:

*> --- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote: >
*

*>> Or else you allow Boolean logic at the quantum
*

*>> level, and then
*

*>> Kolmogorov axioms break, yielding Youssef's quantum
*

*>> probability theory
*

*>> (in which probabilities are complex numbers rather
*

*>> than real numbers).
*

*>
*

*> Precisely so! Boolean logic holds, Kolmogorov's
*

*> axioms break.
*

The digression into quantum logic and related bits set off some red

flags in my mind, and after going back and reading some of the

literature, it *really* started to set off some flags. The

mathematical models seem vaguely consistent in isolation, but they do

not appear to be completely consistent as a body nor with the evidence

available for practical matters. This isn't a direct criticism of the

above quoted material or what anyone wrote per se, but something

doesn't hold up. There is some type of mismatched assumptions in the

interaction of all the pieces. It looks like a variant of a mistake

I've actually seen before in literature.

1.) QM models generally assert non-determinism inappropriately. They

assume literal mathematical non-determinism, but generally make no

distinction for systems that are not measurably deterministic but which

are nonetheless fundamentally deterministic. Expressions of both cases

will look empirically identical but the mathematical consequences of

which model you assume are qualitatively different. There is no

justification for assuming non-determinism over non-measurable

determinism in practice.

2.) The physics do not seem to imply mathematical non-determinism,

just a system which is not measurably deterministic. Hell, the

mathematics of QM in question have finite descriptions, which means

"deterministic" in a normal Kolmogorov sense (it is worth noting that a

number of other people have raised this particular objection in

literature).

The basic problem that I see is that no distinction is made in the math

between non-deterministic systems and systems which are not measurably

deterministic in some finite context. And that an assumption of

non-determinism is used for some of the physics appears incorrect prima

facie from an information theoretic standpoint. One could throw in a

bunch of stuff about Fisher information etc, but i think the real

problem lies in the assumption I already mentioned. So from this

standpoint, the standard deterministic model would still seem to apply.

I've noticed that very few papers actually deal with the measurability

of determinism in their models, which is closely related to predictive

limits (how I became acquainted with the concept a number of years

ago). It is nonetheless a very important concept to keep straight when

talking about computation on finite state machinery because the

consequences are broad and subtle.

So in short, I'm not buying the non-deterministic quantum escape hatch

unless someone can make a convincing argument that we are not looking

at a non-measurable deterministic (there has got to be a better term

for this -- it doesn't have a namespace in math AFAIK) phenomenon,

because there is not insignificant evidence that the latter is the

actual case. I call it an "escape hatch" because using an assumption

of non-determinism automagically solves nasty problems without much

additional thought. In other words, it is probably popular because it

is theoretically convenient and most folks are not terribly familiar

with predictive limits/measurability of determinism math.

This is probably a bad time to be dropping a hairy theory grenade since

I'll be traveling for a few days, but there it is. I'm calling

shenanigans. I'll add that fine models for consciousness, qualia, etc

can be elegantly derived from the deterministic system, even if it

doesn't allow you to conveniently bury the subtleties in

non-determinism.

j. andrew rogers

**Next message:**Metaqualia: "qualia explained - FINAL ;)"**Previous message:**Philip Sutton: "RE: Random Mandarin"**In reply to:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Next in thread:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Something Fishy"**Reply:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Something Fishy"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Something Fishy (was: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT
*