Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#131

Post by Nevermark »

staticassertion wrote: post #130
Nevermark wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for you patience. I wrote way too much. And have re-read what you wrote and the article. > It is not incomplete to say that something does not require explanation > Values of physical constants of nature > the most popular choice was that the constants are considered brute facts and thus require no exotic explanation So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts". If something is determined, some…

> So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts". Cool, that is fine. I deny lots of things as well. It's a position you can hold. > If something is determined, something determined it. That's fine but you'll likely find yourself in an infinite regress. That's a cost you'll have to take on under your theory. > People invent ways to explain away our ignorance of the reasons behind things, instead of acce…

[DELETED]

Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied.

Zero information constraints: Specifics only as fully determined, full coverage of undetermined specifics, conservation of information. These axioms, unlike most, impose a lack of external information not just as a desirable property, but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. Unlike most axioms, which are imposed information themselves.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#132

Post by staticassertion »

Nevermark wrote: post #131
staticassertion wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So yes, I deny the coherence of the concept of "brute facts". Cool, that is fine. I deny lots of things as well. It's a position you can hold. > If something is determined, something determined it. That's fine but you'll likely find yourself in an infinite regress. That's a cost you'll have to take on under your theory. > People invent ways to explain away our ignorance of the reasons behind things, instead of acce…

[DELETED] Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied. Zero information constraints: Specifics only as fully determined, full coverage of undetermined specifics, conservation of information. These axioms, unlike most, impose a lack of external information not just as a desirable property, but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. Unlike most axioms, which are imposed information themselves.

> Infinite regress is avoided by co-constraints, such as consistency and conservation.

You have to explain these constraints if you don't want them to be brute.

edit: > Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied.

It's cool. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here about "zero information constraints".

edit: > but harness them as a tautological universal constraint.

This just sounds like a brute contingent fact. It's almost the definition of a brute contingency, as far as I can tell.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#133

Post by Nevermark »

staticassertion wrote: post #132
Nevermark wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[DELETED] Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied. Zero information constraints: Specifics only as fully determined, full coverage of undetermined specifics, conservation of information. These axioms, unlike most, impose a lack of external information not just as a desirable property, but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. Unlike most axioms, which are imposed information themselves.

> Infinite regress is avoided by co-constraints, such as consistency and conservation. You have to explain these constraints if you don't want them to be brute. edit: > Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied. It's cool. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here about "zero information constraints". edit: > but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. This just sounds like a bru…

The "constraint" that a complete description of reality doesn't require external information, isn't a brute contingent, it is a tautology. One that can be leveraged as an axiom we get for free.

It has many forms. One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. Transforms must be reversible. We now have the necessity for a law of conservation as a "for-free" requirement, as a result of no external information/interaction.

Local zero information constraints:

No specific exists, except those that are completely determined. Anything else would require external information. This is a law of fully determined intersection.

Anything not completely specified, must exist in all its disjoint alternatives. This is a law of fully exhausted union.

Think of the exhaustive superpositions (unions) over all possible conserving interactions (intersections) in quantum mechanics. A real "local physics" example of this principle.

Cancellation is caused by conservation. Duals that can be generated must be reducible. And it is cancellation of duals that create the non-trivial distributions that superposition and entanglement produce, out of otherwise a neutral exhaustion of possibilities. Instead of noise or uniformity, we get structure.

This all comes from "no external information or interaction".

It turns out, that tautology is far from a trivial constraint. I believe there will only be one structure that will meet that requirement. And its uniqueness will be another manifestation of no external information, no external choice. Uniqueness doesn't require choice.

In fact it is a very active constraint. Try to come up with a form in which everything is either determined, or exhaustively covered, and always locally conserved (i.e. all transforms are fully and exactly reversible). It will be a challenge! Exactly what we want. But you can fit a lot of our current physics in as consistent pieces. Like quantum mechanics. And historically, we have understood the universe better every time we have generalized or unified laws of conservation.

Superposition is simply conservation of information across disjoint conserving intersections. It doesn't collapse, because that would require external or created or "just is" information. Which besides being incoherent (in my opinion), would throw away the only "free axioms" we have as an explanation for why any structure exists at all. Conservation, closure, uniqueness.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#134

Post by staticassertion »

Nevermark wrote: post #133
staticassertion wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infinite regress is avoided by co-constraints, such as consistency and conservation. You have to explain these constraints if you don't want them to be brute. edit: > Edit: Sorry didn't see you had already replied. It's cool. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here about "zero information constraints". edit: > but harness them as a tautological universal constraint. This just sounds like a bru…

The "constraint" that a complete description of reality doesn't require external information, isn't a brute contingent, it is a tautology. One that can be leveraged as an axiom we get for free. It has many forms. One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. Transforms must be reversible. We now have…

I'm confused because you seem to be using the term tautology totally incorrectly. Your post is very confusing for this reason, because you're very clearly just appealing to a brute contingent fact, if not now multiple brute contingent facts.

edit: Okay, I think I am sort of getting what you're saying about tautologies but it's wrong. Either way, I don't think it matters much. You can just deny brute facts, I have no problem with that. I'm just saying you shouldn't assert that brute facts don't exist as if that's the standard position.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#135

Post by Nevermark »

staticassertion wrote: post #134
Nevermark wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "constraint" that a complete description of reality doesn't require external information, isn't a brute contingent, it is a tautology. One that can be leveraged as an axiom we get for free. It has many forms. One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. Transforms must be reversible. We now have…

I'm confused because you seem to be using the term tautology totally incorrectly. Your post is very confusing for this reason, because you're very clearly just appealing to a brute contingent fact, if not now multiple brute contingent facts. edit: Okay, I think I am sort of getting what you're saying about tautologies but it's wrong. Either way, I don't think it matters much. You can just deny brute facts, I have no…

Any theory or model of reality, must take into account all of reality. It cannot depend on, or interact with, or export anything to, anything external. As that would not be a model of reality.

That is a tautology, no?

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#136

Post by staticassertion »

Nevermark wrote: post #135
staticassertion wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused because you seem to be using the term tautology totally incorrectly. Your post is very confusing for this reason, because you're very clearly just appealing to a brute contingent fact, if not now multiple brute contingent facts. edit: Okay, I think I am sort of getting what you're saying about tautologies but it's wrong. Either way, I don't think it matters much. You can just deny brute facts, I have no…

Any theory or model of reality, must take into account all of reality. It cannot depend on, or interact with, or export anything to, anything external. As that would not be a model of reality. That is a tautology, no?

Yes, but nothing else that you've said follows from that. For example,

> One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way.

This is not a tautology, it is a metaphysical claim.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#137

Post by Nevermark »

staticassertion wrote: post #136
Nevermark wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any theory or model of reality, must take into account all of reality. It cannot depend on, or interact with, or export anything to, anything external. As that would not be a model of reality. That is a tautology, no?

Yes, but nothing else that you've said follows from that. For example, > One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. This is not a tautology, it is a metaphysical claim.

No, a model of reality cannot import something from anywhere else. Whatever is within reality, can only be determined by reality.

Nor can anything in reality, be exported outside of reality.

Reality is the one thing, the only thing, that cannot depend on anything undetermined or unchosen by itself.

The fact that reality must account for both itself, and any of its specifics, with no other domain to draw from, is a higher level of demand than for any other theory. That demand is a hard and unique constraint. A tautological constraint that is therefore usable as an axiom.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#138

Post by staticassertion »

Nevermark wrote: post #137
staticassertion wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but nothing else that you've said follows from that. For example, > One is, nothing can be created (no external source), or destroyed (no external dump), so any local structures can be transformed, but must be conserved in some way. This is not a tautology, it is a metaphysical claim.

No, a model of reality cannot import something from anywhere else. Whatever is within reality, can only be determined by reality. Nor can anything in reality, be exported outside of reality. Reality is the one thing, the only thing, that cannot depend on anything undetermined or unchosen by itself. The fact that reality must account for both itself, and any of its specifics, with no other domain to draw from, is a hi…

I mean, these are all just metaphysical claims. It also doesn't seem to address brute facts, which would be within reality, so it seems sort of pointless. It also doesn't seem to address infinite regresses.

Even if I grant your "axiom", which is just that "reality exclusively contains reality", nothing interesting follows from that for this conversation.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#139

Post by Nevermark »

staticassertion wrote: post #138
Nevermark wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a model of reality cannot import something from anywhere else. Whatever is within reality, can only be determined by reality. Nor can anything in reality, be exported outside of reality. Reality is the one thing, the only thing, that cannot depend on anything undetermined or unchosen by itself. The fact that reality must account for both itself, and any of its specifics, with no other domain to draw from, is a hi…

I mean, these are all just metaphysical claims. It also doesn't seem to address brute facts, which would be within reality, so it seems sort of pointless. It also doesn't seem to address infinite regresses. Even if I grant your "axiom", which is just that "reality exclusively contains reality", nothing interesting follows from that for this conversation.

If there is only one such structure, if it is unique, then the question of its existence goes away. What would existence mean?

We would just know there was a unique self-consistent all consistent form covering structure. And that any form within that structure, with a sophisticating self-sensing self-interpretive ability, would experience its own existence.

Existence would then mean, part of the unique self-consistent, zero-information, independent of any externality, structure.

A perceived existence as a result of a unique tautological structure, not a result of any external composition.

And the phrase "I think therefore I am", would be tautological in both senses. As evidence. But also, as the actual meaning of existence. Given a self-aware form within a tautology, its perception of existence is the nature of existence.

Reality was always going to be something that forms structures, that are somehow inevitable, the only possibility, not something selected or manufactured by something else.

Re: Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve?

#140

Post by staticassertion »

Nevermark wrote: post #139
staticassertion wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, these are all just metaphysical claims. It also doesn't seem to address brute facts, which would be within reality, so it seems sort of pointless. It also doesn't seem to address infinite regresses. Even if I grant your "axiom", which is just that "reality exclusively contains reality", nothing interesting follows from that for this conversation.

If there is only one such structure, if it is unique, then the question of its existence goes away. What would existence mean? We would just know there was a unique self-consistent all consistent form covering structure. And that any form within that structure, with a sophisticating self-sensing self-interpretive ability, would experience its own existence. Existence would then mean, part of the unique self-consisten…

I mean, again, these are just claims and, once again, another brute fact.

> Reality was always going to be something that includes structure, that is somehow inevitable, the only possibility, not something selected or manufactured by something else.

This is a brute fact. I mean, literally it just is.

Post reply on HN