[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance" project.

[Richard Hanson]

[Attributions fixed, slightly. Some kind of strange quantum
entanglement seems to be going on here, somehow... Strings... er...
threads broken and attributions teleporting... ;-) ]

(sorry, this looked like too much fun ...

Me, too! ;-)

No comment.

[...] QM may be the ultimate framework
for an observer/observable-based theory of physics,

But, but... How can *QM* be the ultimate framework? -- it doesn't
include gravity (GR).

and since
the observer/observable paradigm is fundamental to science,

Are you sure about that? ;-)

it might be "as good as it gets", in which case an "ultimate
reality" that is meaningful in the context of the scientific
method might well require probability.

Leaving aside the determinate-indeterminate question, a case could be
(iconoclastically) made that the observer-observable "paradigm" was
*excluded* not *included* by GR and QM. You might say that GR and QM
take the "observer" *out* of the picture. In GR you could say that the
observer is transformed away -- it's all relative, and all that.
Likewise, in QM it seems that a robot taking measurements is
sufficient to "collapse the wave function." Of course, you could also
argue that robots are people, too. ;-)

The current work by physicists in all this is to find a way to
*combine* both QM and GR into a unified theory which works at all
scales and matter-energy densities.

And then, what's all this dark matter and dark energy stuff?... ;-)

To slightly paraphrase Richard Feynman, no one even understands
*quantum mechanics*.

Of course, if you want to transcend observer/observable, you
have to go beyond science, and into the realm of "Cosmajoonity"
(see Freeman Dyson's delightful book "Disturbing the Universe" .

Ultimately, many things may not be knowable in principle. How can
"all" be knowable to humans who are part of the very "system" being
considered, i.e., the cosmos?


all-in-fun'ly y'rs,
Richard Hanson

 

[Stephen Waterbury]

[...] QM may be the ultimate framework
for an observer/observable-based theory of physics,

But, but... How can *QM* be the ultimate framework? -- it doesn't
include gravity (GR).

Touche! OK, modulo superstrings.

Are you sure about that? ;-)

Well, at least until someone shows me how to do an experiment
without observing something.

Likewise, in QM it seems that a robot taking measurements is
sufficient to "collapse the wave function." Of course, you could also
argue that robots are people, too. ;-)

Perhaps, but even if not, they're definitely "observers".

To slightly paraphrase Richard Feynman, no one even understands
*quantum mechanics*.

Still true. With the possible exception of those in sahaj
samadhi (for some definition of "understands" .

Ultimately, many things may not be knowable in principle. How can
"all" be knowable to humans who are part of the very "system" being
considered, i.e., the cosmos?

Well, that's where the Cosmajoonity comes in -- if you *are* the
system, all you have to do is know yourself! But I guess that's
what we're working on, anyway.

OK, enough elephant shit from me!

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Paolo Veronelli]

Possibly people will like to use their browser for everything.
What really miss in the net now is a way for spreading annotations on
contents (which could be right also for personal knowledge managment)
I suggest to use semantic web concepts for indexing contents and even
user interfaces.
Would be nice to have some rdf files which describe LongHorn
funcionalities in toto (just to give space to my hate)
Anyway good luck and take a good look on Indigo job:Unununium
Paolino

 

[Andrew Dalke]

Touche! OK, modulo superstrings.

There are many quantum mechanics models. The original
one, the Schrödinger equation, was extended to relativity
with the Klein-Gordon equation, thence refined to
quantum eletrodynamics (QED) to include the weak for
and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) to include the strong
force.

All of these are quantum mechanics, as is string
theory, *-branes, and many others, including many
known to be non-physical. Superstrings is an attempt
to be a quantum theory that includes gravity.

The confusion you two had is that our current best
description of the universe is called the Standard
Model and it's often assumed that the Standard Model
is identical to being QM, as compared to only be *a*
quantum mechanical model.


There was an interesting paper a month or two back,
forgot where, which showed how the length of time for
superposition was a function of temperature. The
hotter it was the shorter the time, because there
were more photons interacting with the environment.

No active "taking measurements needed" -- only interaction
with the passive environment. Though I didn't read
the article that closely. I mostly looked at the
picture.

I also read something recently about a proposed
experiment that might distinguish between a couple
of the standard philosophical interpretations of
QM. About all I recall is that the granddaughter
of one of the early 20th century physicists (Bohr?
Schrödinger? Heisenberg?) was involved.


Andrew
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme]

[Istvan Albert]:

Pick a simple task, design a program that does it and make it as
simple as you can. Then grab a few people off the street, take
them to a room, ask them to perform the task, leave the room, then
watch them try to accomplish that task. The lessons you learn in a
few hours will last you a lifetime. You'll then understand why
this "generic computing appliance" serving the "needs of a typical
user" makes no sense whatsoever.

making a single, specific appliance is very different from making a
general tool to augment man's capabilities. grab a random person and
put him in a car. how far would he go without extensive training?
sometimes you have to spend time to save time.

 

[Arthur]

That is the question. To me, the underlying question is whether the
existence of this universe (in particular, the big bang) was
'deterministic' or 'arbitrary' in some megauniverse.


That is your religious belief -- and perhaps Enstein's. But I am not sure
that God has any choice but to play dice.

One does not need to be a QM fundamentist to speculate that God does
something other than catch and throw away the corner cases that
necessarily challenge a deterministic Universe.

Art

 

[Richard Hanson]

Anyway good luck and take a good look on Indigo job:Unununium

Thanks! And thanks for that reference! -- I'll check it out when I get
the opportunity.

---

[Note: I am having equipment and connectivity problems. I'll be back
as I can when I get things sorted out better, and as appropriate (or
inappropriate ;-) ). Thanks to you and to all for the civil
and fun discussions!]


I-can-*almost*-remember-when-things-were-simpler'ly y'rs,
Richard Hanson

 

[Richard Hanson]

There are many quantum mechanics models. The original
one, the Schrödinger equation, was extended to relativity
with the Klein-Gordon equation, thence refined to
quantum eletrodynamics (QED) to include the weak for
and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) to include the strong
force.

I've heard of these strange things a very *wee* bit.

All of these are quantum mechanics, as is string
theory, *-branes, and many others, including many
known to be non-physical. Superstrings is an attempt
to be a quantum theory that includes gravity.

I *almost* kinda knew that, too, sorta.

The confusion you two had is that our current best
description of the universe is called the Standard
Model and it's often assumed that the Standard Model
is identical to being QM, as compared to only be *a*
quantum mechanical model.

*Had*?! -- Hell, I'm *still* extremely confused! ;-)

Note that as I've alluded to, sometimes even explicitly stated, I'm a
generalist with only a few areas of deeper knowledge. Cosmology,
particle physics, and the like are decidedly *not* areas wherein I
have even a hobbyist's level of knowledge. About the only thing I know
about such is that laymen (myself *decidedly* included) don't know
much about such. ;-)

(I learned a long time ago of an estimation of the amount of time and
study it would take for a layman to get even slightly up to speed on
these topics -- could be a decade or more if one *only* concentrated
on these subjects. So, I decided to remain a layman concerning these
areas -- life is too short, and all -- but who would, nonetheless,
continue reading about these and many other fascinating domains.)

I've heard of the Standard Model, the Copenhagen and Wheeler's "many
worlds" interpretations of such, Kaluza-Klein, "hidden-variables
theories" (Wheeler, Bohm, both? -- others, I presume), and other
phrases of the like. But, I *gladly* grant my confusion and ignorance,
and *do* appreciate your kindly edification -- I realize that knowing
of "buzz words" does *not* imply understanding of such.

Again, I'm only an autodidact, so most assuredly, there are *major*
holes in my education.

There was an interesting paper a month or two back,
forgot where, which showed how the length of time for
superposition was a function of temperature. The
hotter it was the shorter the time, because there
were more photons interacting with the environment.

No active "taking measurements needed" -- only interaction
with the passive environment. Though I didn't read
the article that closely. I mostly looked at the
picture.

Wow! Fascinating -- stranger and stranger (as someone may have said).

I also read something recently about a proposed
experiment that might distinguish between a couple
of the standard philosophical interpretations of
QM. About all I recall is that the granddaughter
of one of the early 20th century physicists (Bohr?
Schrödinger? Heisenberg?) was involved.

Again, very interesting!

Thanks for your further help to ameliorate my very limited knowledge
of the field (as it were). Much appreciated!

---

[Note: I am having equipment and connectivity problems. I'll be back
as I can when I get things sorted out better, and as appropriate (or
inappropriate ;-) ). Thanks to you and to all for the civil
and fun discussions!]


thanks!--a-man's-gotta-know-his-limitations'ly y'rs,
Richard Hanson

 

[Richard Hanson]

[...] QM may be the ultimate framework
for an observer/observable-based theory of physics,

But, but... How can *QM* be the ultimate framework? -- it doesn't
include gravity (GR).

[Other musings from the two of us mercilessly snipped. ;-) ]

OK, enough elephant shit from me!

And, enough horseshit from me. ;-)

---

[Note: I am having equipment and connectivity problems. I'll be back
as I can when I get things sorted out better, and as appropriate (or
inappropriate ;-) ). Thanks to you and to all for the civil
and fun discussions!]


whadda-I-know-about-all-*this*-stuff?'ly y'rs,
Richard Hanson

 

[Ville Vainio]

Stephen> What makes you so sure that "ultimate Reality" is a well-formed
Stephen> (logically consistent) concept? QM may be the ultimate framework

I have yet to see nothing indicating the opposite. Even the logical
inconsistence would have something behind it, directing the process.

Stephen> for an observer/observable-based theory of physics, and
Stephen> since the observer/observable paradigm is fundamental to
Stephen> science, it might be "as good as it gets", in which case
Stephen> an "ultimate reality" that is meaningful in the context
Stephen> of the scientific method might well require probability.

"Ultimate reality" whose meaning is limited by the context of
scientific method isn't all that "ultimate", is it? ;-)

Stephen> Of course, if you want to transcend observer/observable,
Stephen> you have to go beyond science, and into the realm of
Stephen> "Cosmajoonity" (see Freeman Dyson's delightful book
Stephen> "Disturbing the Universe" .

Going beyond science is exactly what I'm after when talking about
ultimate reality - it's mostly a "religious" concept, more relevant to
a mystic having a yogic peak experience than a scientist. Still, I'm
delighted to see anti-deterministic theories being debunked also in
the scientific circles.

Scientists are perhaps a bit too eager to think that they are
beginning to understand ultimate reality when they just have some new
theories that support their empiric data.

BTW, congratulations on being the first one to use the word
"Cosmajoonity" on the internet, according to google at least .

 

[Ville Vainio]

Richard> Ultimately, many things may not be knowable in
Richard> principle. How can "all" be knowable to humans who are
Richard> part of the very "system" being considered, i.e., the
Richard> cosmos?

In the Samadhi experience, the observer is no longer and thus fathoms
"all", including the ultimate reality (because he *is* the ultimate
reality).

That's not necessarily something one should use as a respense in a
physics exam, of course.

 

[Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou]

(I've already thought of Doors... -- doors are more useful than
windows, aren't they? ;-) )

Yes. Actually, Microsoft marketing people had the same epiphany as you,
and they'll use Doors as the official name for the Longhorn UI. Just
grok the tagline: "MS Doors: back to the future".

 

[Greg Ewing]

Still, I'm
delighted to see anti-deterministic theories being debunked also in
the scientific circles.

The word isn't "debunked", it's "refined". When Einstein
came up with relativity, Newtonian mechanics didn't
suddenly become "bunk". On the contrary, it remains a
very successful theory within its domain of applicability
and is still very much used. The same will likely be
true of current quantum theories vs. anything that comes
up in the future.

Scientists are perhaps a bit too eager to think that they are
beginning to understand ultimate reality when they just have some new
theories that support their empiric data.

But scientists don't usually claim to understand any
such thing. Generally they're well aware that their
theories are no more than "current best knowledge".

They may not *say* that very often in so many words,
but that's only because to them it's something that's
self-evident and doesn't need saying.

 

[Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou]

Well, at least until someone shows me how to do an experiment
without observing something.

Pretend you're igniting a bomb fuse: start the experiment, duck, and run
away