Re: MD Quality as a Possibility Field

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 13:30:32 GMT

Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: FW: RE: MD Calling all atheists"

Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Skutvik: Habituated Liar."

Previous message: Platt Holden: "MD Does Neuroscience Support the MOQ?"
In reply to: Case: "RE: MD Quality as a Possibility Field"
Next in thread: Case: "RE: MD Quality as a Possibility Field"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Case,

You asked ...
"How to you see the anthropic principle or entropy relating to quantum
uncertainty?"

Answer - I don't. I was just reminding us to be open minded to the
fact that some (a very few) physicists to this day do not believe that
"god plays dice".
For "Anthropic Entropic Principle" (ie Einstein was right) see
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1123
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1132
http://www.anthropic-principle.org/
For antidote to the above (normal uncontroversial anthropic principle) see
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/index.html

My views on Quantum Information ?
I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I don't do the equations and the
math, but ...
Here's a start ... 90% speculative ... (links at the end)

My original interest in QI was in QuBits in Quantum Computing -
entities whose states are holistically both 1 and 0 (and all states in
between) at the same time (me and my dichotomies, eh ?), but that's
just the start - it gets seriously weird ...

(BTW David Deutsch - pioneer in QI was very recently awarded a prize
for his work. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/prize05/prize05_index.html
)

In reality, you, me, Mark (and many people) are fascinated by the
ideas of chaos and uncertainty (and coherent sweet spots) at the macro
level (butterflies in the rainforest, etc) and some of us are
strangely, fatally attracted to the idea that somehow Heisenberg and
the quantum uncertainty of (currently accepted) fundamental physics
must underly it somehow. Too much of a coincidence ?

The problem is can one quantum event affect another separated by macro
scale distances ? (Without interveing large scale physics - without
large scale material and electromagmentic communication) Well yes,
that's non-locality, action at a distance between quantum events,
communicating with no time lag, faster than light, with no exchange of
"particles" .... In fact (with or without the many worlds
interpretation, or collapsing wave function metaphor) think about
diffraction gratings or holographic plates - photons interacting with
physically separated slits or grains and interfereing with each other
as they do it, despite the macro scale separation. Happens all the
time - action at a distance, faster than light, (backwards in time
relatively speaking) without electromagnetic communication. Causality
as we know it looks thoroughly screwed.

If you have this kind of communication, you can have coherence - whole
sets of macro separated quantum events "randomly" occurring in unison,
synchronised on a large scale. Quantum uncertainty translated to
larger scales is possible. Proves nothing though.

We need to wind back. This story now shoots of in several different directions.

Remember I came into this MoQ space because I'm interesting in
epistemology and creation and communication of meaning from / between
interacting things, leading to knowledge and decision making.

Think Information - fundamentally defined as any "significant"
"difference" between any two points in "space-time" (Chalmers) - NB
Significance, Semiosis, where meaning comes from.

Think Quantum Coherence - maybe the world really is a hologram
(Talbot, et al) - the interference between many dispersed quantum
scale events. Where the simplest, most fundamental "significant
difference" from which all others are constructed are individual
quantum events - will it / won't it, yes / no, 1 / 0 QuBit (with all
points between yes / no, 1 / 0 too) A very, very dense information
model.

A very dense fundamental information model - maybe better evolved that
a digital computer model of minds, thought and knowledge ? (There are
a lot of people even now looking at quantum coherence in brain
processes - after Penrose, Hameroff, etc. I think this is a red
herring, but we may learn something.)

Ignoring string theories for a moment - if the world is composed of
quantum events, it is in a very real sense composed of "information".

This would have all been idle speculation if I didn't suddenly spot
that Bleeding Edge Computer Geeks, looking at Quantum Computation
(commercial exploitation in fast powerful computing devices and
encryption possibilities), didn't themselves suddenly shout - hey
we've found the secret of the universe. Holochory / Dirac Nilpotence -
the world is actually made of information - and its information that
can be communicated / shared in zero time - a field of interactions /
differences - quality triplets (a thing / a difference / another
thing) - a quality field.

Ian

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

Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: FW: RE: MD Calling all atheists"
Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Skutvik: Habituated Liar."
Previous message: Platt Holden: "MD Does Neuroscience Support the MOQ?"
In reply to: Case: "RE: MD Quality as a Possibility Field"
Next in thread: Case: "RE: MD Quality as a Possibility Field"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 14:09:33 GMT