**From:** Ben Goertzel (*ben@goertzel.org*)

**Date:** Fri May 28 2004 - 06:05:45 MDT

**Next message:**Mike: "RE: External reference semantics"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "Something Fishy (was: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Next in thread:**Giu1i0 Pri5c0: "Re: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi,

*> 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.
*

Quantum logic and quantum probability theory are each consistent in

themselves, and are each consistent with observed experiments in quantum

physics. However, they are competing conceptual explanations for these

quantum experiments. In that sense they are not "consistent with each

other as a body."

*> 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.
*

Whether you assume true nondeterminism or not doesn't really affect any

of the issues addressed by quantum logic and quantum probability theory.

They are both compatible with deterministic hidden-variables theories

like Bohm's.

*> 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.
*

As I said, in practice this assumption doesn't seem to make any

difference. If you assume a weird enough underlying deterministic

universe (like Bohm's hidden-variables theory) then you can have QM and

determinism: everyone understands that. But for practical purposes, it

seems most elegant and convenient to make the assumption of

nondeterminism, as that makes the math so much simpler and fits the

observed data conceptually.

An interesting mystery, that making "wrong" assumptions makes things so

much simpler --- and allows one to elegantly derive theories predicting

important aspects of reality to within 21 decimal places (or whatever it

is now).

Yet more evidence that either the universe is very perverse, or our

brains are -- or both!!

-- Ben G

**Next message:**Mike: "RE: External reference semantics"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "Randomness, consistency, physics, mystery"**In reply to:**J. Andrew Rogers: "Something Fishy (was: Quantum physics & the mystery thereof"**Next in thread:**Giu1i0 Pri5c0: "Re: 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
*