From: Chris Phoenix (cphoenix@CRNano.org)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 19:00:34 BST
Scott Roberts wrote:
> In any case, I think referring to DQ as the uncollapsed state vector is
> wrong. Since, though uncollapsed, there is nevertheless structure, the
> uncollapsed state vector is unobserved SQ, not DQ. DQ might be considered
> the observation that collapses it,
> though.
It was a bit of a surprise to read this just after I wrote my note about
DQ and physics. Seems we're approaching similar ideas from different
angles, always a good sign.
I think there's a contradiction in saying "unobserved SQ" since MOQ
subscribes to empiricism and anything unobserved doesn't exist as far as
it's concerned. (I think that's stated near the beginning of LILA.)
It's worth noting that an uncollapsed state vector is still in the
time-reversible part of physics. Since MOQ seems to be about
development, and thus to incorporate time, I don't think it has any use
for uncollapsed state vectors. It might, however, have an interest in
the process of collapse.
In my previous post I'd hinted that an observer is what converts entropy
into possibility, by imparting value to a particular future-possible
state. And I'd suggested, though with great caution, that this observer
might be related to the observer that causes quantum-mechanical
collapse. (Note that this is only relevant to some theories of
quantum-mechanical collapse; most have no use for an observer.) But I
see a contradiction here: Entropy happens without a valuing observer,
and entropy is quite possibly related to QM collapse. So I think I have
to retract this part of the speculation.
Since observation of a state vector is an act, and implies an actor, and
is only relevant in some versions of theory, it may be better to talk
about DQ as the collapse of the vector rather than as the observer that
causes the collapse. That, I think, forges a close connection between
DQ and entropy, or DQ and time (or are entropy and time equivalent at
this level? Is there a physicist in the house???) I'd suggest that a
distinction should be maintained between DQ and mere change. Not all
change leads to new levels of Quality--new possibilities. Or does it?
Is there a continuum, and each change can be assigned a value, and DQ
comes in all sizes? If so, that suggests that it ought to be
quantifiable. But when I look at why we think DQ is important in the
first place--that it leads to new kinds of patterns--I don't see much
way to relate this to QM-level changes. It'd be like trying to value
the individual bits in a computer's memory according to which file they
were part of.
So I'm starting to think that the whole physics angle is a dead end.
Physics obviously supports everything, and may impose broad limits on
philosophies and systems of metaphysics, but trying to unify
metaphysical concepts with physical phenomena probably won't work.
Chris
-- Chris Phoenix cphoenix@CRNano.org Director of Research Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 20 2004 - 19:04:32 BST