Let me add one idea to the "scale-free" concept as discussed: There could be constraints on what is consistent relative to boundaries and satisfiability requirements.
Transdisciplinary perspectives mine higher knowledge of the syncretic and perrenial ideas. Thank you for your highly skilled facilitations. Much needed.
Many physicists seem to see themselves as persons of superior understanding who should not waste their time on such rubbish as Whitehead's metaphysics. It's great to see you guys working on this.
Unfortunately there had been some distance between physics and philosophy since the time of the idealists, it seams. (As far as I understand the desire to distance oneself from the other was mutual at first). Let's hope for a new era. 😜
I definitely have my issues with the many-worlds interpretation. Still, I have a fondness for the idea of a quantum multiverse containing alternate versions of myself and my loved ones. This timeline hasn't unfolded all that well for me and mine, so I want there to be others where we're happier. I don't know how or if it can be done, but I'd love to see the MWI reformulated to make it compatible with Whiteheadian process philosophy.
We first imagine new ways of interfacing with reality outside of us as mere observers until we can accept responsibility and bring the model internally as cocreators of both the inner and outer world.
that which is pervasive in Nature and in nature of person...if a true object has no magnitude and isn't divisible (Zeno) yet has a frequency or tone, which is an assertive presentation that can be combined by others or allowing in the division as combining with others like the half or integral spin dimension allowance. Perhaps the interface tool fine enough is plasma, shown by JAY MOAP channel brilliantly complete with papers linked. The red object. and different shades not different objects but the same object in different instances of itself, a wheel moving around a vertical shaft but rolling within itself and gliding around the vertical tight spin, pinned as moving out into the horizontal. I get a picture of a weight lifting bar with old style weights, getting smaller as moving out from the vertical shaft, pinned by the bar. There's this space between the circles of weights as the universe, like a trapezoid with incurved top and bottom that consciouness is the skewing of the trapezoid in one's head and the universe as pantograph perception, the cycloids at top and bottom the expansion pressure assert/allow that moves into series as exponent 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^5 where 2^2 is significant as crossroad, 2^3 as integral spin, dropping down while moving out into the horizontal as the fundamental theory of algebra. The pantograph is the blend or assert of tones, and the assert for the 2^3 person is special. This is the Platonic and neo Platonic, where the asserted three leaps improve on the relatio religio of the geometric. The information skips to understanding, rotates as the wheel/base of cone, and projects knowledge out as careful tone blending, the peak into higher dimension as tip of cone, the 2^5 dodecahedron of care as two cones flexing between hourglass and spinning top as the quadrant objects, and the calculus as vertical slices in the parallelogram in the material world, under the cycloid efficiency banner, pinned by life. thanks for the show!
Is there any collapse of wave function if the board on which it collapse as particule, perhaps the problem lay on the fact that as soon as it becomes in contact with an entity the wave turn to particule .
That's the original idea, where "object" meant *classical* object. The Problem arises, when we think of *everything* as quantum. Then there is no "object" to interact with anymore. And if you don't have any internal cause for a collapse... Then none should ever occur....
Just rewatch this... I think I didn't do such a good job on "are fields like the eather?" I think they should actually be though of more as eternal objects: the electron field is the general possibility for the existence of electrons in the universe. The electro-magnetic field is the possibility for the existence of light and warmth and x-rays and radio-waves etc... So an e-m-waves "propagating as an excitation through the e-m-field" might not so much be a wave in a medium as a process happening from it's possibility (??) I think that comes actually closer to the field-term as it's used in physics... I will ask my physics-friends for help on that one. 🙂
I somehow didn't get back to your point of the highly ordered society sheltering more possibilities for novelty... The point I wanted to come to was: that not every society functions as a complex amplifier (right?), rocks don't but cells (that have way fewer parts than a rock) do. And so I wonder: shouldn't we be able to tell by looking at a system, whether it functions as a komplex amplifier or not? In other words: do you think we can tell the degree of mental capacity of "a society of events" or "a system" (can I use those words interchangeably?) by looking at its material ordering? And my hunch is that the scale-free ordering might be crucial for the amplification... I guess I will take that as a question into our next conversation. 😄
I think that Whitehead's metaphysics is not able of itself to sort out the muddles of quantum physics. The muddles of quantum physics have to be sorted out in terms of quantum physics.
I think I understand what you mean (interesting point!). And I think I agree. But I still hope/think, that Whitehead's framing of the problem could lead the way to the solution within QM. ... But I think I will have to think about that one. Thx
@@FlavioLanfranconi Yes, Whitehead's metaphysics is a good platform for thinking, the best basis we have seen, but metaphysics is only about the platform for thinking, it's not the thinking itself.
14:57 The classical/quantum problem is different. 0.Misunderstandings come from a methodological oversight. 1. The probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena by quantum theory implies the symmetry of the results: 50/50. 2. However, such an interpretation by quantum theory is a priori extrapolated to asymmetric phenomena. 3. For example, in the case of Schrodinger's cat, the radiation source is considered as a symmetrical/probabilistic (50/50) element of the experiment, however, it is combined with an asymmetric participant: a cat that, being alive or dead, has asymmetric states. 4. For clarity, you can “slightly” modify the experiment: place a dead cat in a "black box" with a radiation source. It seems that now even the most faithful follower of quantum theory will not claim that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time or will come to life in another universe. {The cunning plan “B” with a sleeping cat is: “Sweeping garbage under the carpet.” (Feynman) and is addressed to inattentive (sleepy) followers of quantum theory.} 5. It is better to put illuminated photo paper in a drawer: it is unlikely that the paper will react to the actions of the 50/50 source in such a way as to become usable again. Or a proton, an electron, an electron antineutrino and wait for the spontaneous appearance of a neutron. 6. Events and phenomena themselves exist independently of the frame of reference, but their specific manifestations and quantitative ratios in different frames of reference (attention!) they can be completely different.* 7. So, if in your frame of reference you observe / measure and/ or evaluate / identify the probabilistic nature of a certain physical process in another frame of reference, for example, for a coin: 50/50; then this is your right, since all frames of reference are equal (not to be confused with equivalence). {By the way, entangled particles: each of the particles in its own frame of reference is equal with its spin, for example, up, with another particle with spin down, in a different coordinate system, but is not equivalent to the other.} 8. And in the system associated with the tossed coin, there is no probability: the usual natural physical process takes place here (there is no need to move to another universe**). 9. It is clear that this also applies to purely quantum objects, for example, to the process of their decay. On the one hand, collapse is the final stage of the evolution of the wave function, on the other hand, collapse - in quantum theory - is ignoring causality, since this “phenomenon” is assigned a zero time interval here. 10. Unfortunately, with all possible interpretations of quantum theory, the "tradition of one-sidedness”, unfortunately, stupidly/intrusively holds: for now. Even in the multi-world and with the “appearance of properties in particles due to measurement", Bell, Wigner… Hence the “observer effect". 11.The uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of what probability/equivalence is. In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate the absence of exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters. 12.Finally, the evaluation of the state function of the system under study (~ the universe) depends on the choice of the reference frame and coordinate system: the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device, a change in the physical /biological state of the observer, a change in the mental / intellectual state of the observer, that is, the detection of the next phase of evolution its own frame of reference; - thanks to which measurement becomes possible! 13. Jokes with time asymmetry are inexcusable even for such a "blindly lucky quantum theory". ---------------- *) - The equations that formulate the laws of physics should be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations: "Equality" and "the same flow of processes" are not analogous concepts: and the word "relativity" itself contributed to the confusion of the concepts of "relative motion" and "relativism of phenomena". The relativity of motion determines the immutability of laws: the ambiguity of the word "relativity", when the content changes depending on whether it is applied to motion or to the formulation of physical laws, caused many errors." (Tonnela, Updating the concept of relativity in Einstein's physics). **) - When Einstein noted: "God does not play dice," Bohr pointed out: "One should not tell God how to rule the world." However, Einstein apparently meant that there are no randomness for bones in their frame of reference.
The macroscopic apparatus consists of many atoms. It is not in a pure quantum state. That is to say, it is not quantum mechanically coherent with the microscopic quantum system, which is in a pure quantum state.
And how do we get rid of quantum-coherence? Weave-function-collapse. Decoherence also just washes out that problem, no? (I must say: jet another interpretation I don't seam to understand!?) 🧐
@@FlavioLanfranconi Great comment. Quantum coherence is partly about facts, and partly about knowledge of facts. Quantum coherence is partly a matter of conservation, partly a matter of actual timing. Coherence appears in two contexts. One, the Bell experiment. Two, laser activity. People muddle on about the Bell experiment, forgetting that coherence in that case is just a matter of conservation. They hide this from themselves by trying to be """objective""". Spin is conserved in the Bell situation.
@FlavioLanfranconi I would say that it is part of the definition of an isolated Whiteheadian occasion of experience, aka actual entity, that it is internally quantum mechanically self-coherent. In general, for an isolated macroscopic actual entity, we have no prospect of empirically verifying that self-coherence; we just assume it by definition. For a suitably small micriscopic actual entity, such as perhaps a hydrogen atom, we might be able to prepare it in a pure state, and that would certify for us that it was internally self-coherent. For an even smaller actual entity, such as a singlet pair of photons, we can experimentally verify its internal self-coherence. A quantum system in a pure state possesses a wave function. That is its certificate of internal self-coherence. For a quantum system not in a pure state, self-coherence is practically meaningless.
Thank you Matt fo taking time to speak with me.
I'm really looking forward to dialoguing more with you. 😊
That was a great conversation, thanks to both of you!
It's great to see your respect for Landau & Lifshitz, alongside your respect for Whitehead.
Let me add one idea to the "scale-free" concept as discussed: There could be constraints on what is consistent relative to boundaries and satisfiability requirements.
Transdisciplinary perspectives mine higher knowledge of the syncretic and perrenial ideas. Thank you for your highly skilled facilitations. Much needed.
Many physicists seem to see themselves as persons of superior understanding who should not waste their time on such rubbish as Whitehead's metaphysics. It's great to see you guys working on this.
Unfortunately there had been some distance between physics and philosophy since the time of the idealists, it seams. (As far as I understand the desire to distance oneself from the other was mutual at first).
Let's hope for a new era. 😜
@@FlavioLanfranconi Champion !!!
Thank you for this conversation!
At 20:49, a great account of reality according to Whitehead's ontological principle.
looking forward to a part 2, thanks.
I definitely have my issues with the many-worlds interpretation. Still, I have a fondness for the idea of a quantum multiverse containing alternate versions of myself and my loved ones. This timeline hasn't unfolded all that well for me and mine, so I want there to be others where we're happier. I don't know how or if it can be done, but I'd love to see the MWI reformulated to make it compatible with Whiteheadian process philosophy.
We first imagine new ways of interfacing with reality outside of us as mere observers until we can accept responsibility and bring the model internally as cocreators of both the inner and outer world.
that which is pervasive in Nature and in nature of person...if a true object has no magnitude and isn't divisible (Zeno) yet has a frequency or tone, which is an assertive presentation that can be combined by others or allowing in the division as combining with others like the half or integral spin dimension allowance. Perhaps the interface tool fine enough is plasma, shown by JAY MOAP channel brilliantly complete with papers linked. The red object. and different shades not different objects but the same object in different instances of itself, a wheel moving around a vertical shaft but rolling within itself and gliding around the vertical tight spin, pinned as moving out into the horizontal.
I get a picture of a weight lifting bar with old style weights, getting smaller as moving out from the vertical shaft, pinned by the bar. There's this space between the circles of weights as the universe, like a trapezoid with incurved top and bottom that consciouness is the skewing of the trapezoid in one's head and the universe as pantograph perception, the cycloids at top and bottom the expansion pressure assert/allow that moves into series as exponent 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^5 where 2^2 is significant as crossroad, 2^3 as integral spin, dropping down while moving out into the horizontal as the fundamental theory of algebra. The pantograph is the blend or assert of tones, and the assert for the 2^3 person is special.
This is the Platonic and neo Platonic, where the asserted three leaps improve on the relatio religio of the geometric. The information skips to understanding, rotates as the wheel/base of cone, and projects knowledge out as careful tone blending, the peak into higher dimension as tip of cone, the 2^5 dodecahedron of care as two cones flexing between hourglass and spinning top as the quadrant objects, and the calculus as vertical slices in the parallelogram in the material world, under the cycloid efficiency banner, pinned by life.
thanks for the show!
Is there any collapse of wave function if the board on which it collapse as particule, perhaps the problem lay on the fact that as soon as it becomes in contact with an entity the wave turn to particule .
That's the original idea, where "object" meant *classical* object.
The Problem arises, when we think of *everything* as quantum. Then there is no "object" to interact with anymore.
And if you don't have any internal cause for a collapse... Then none should ever occur....
Electron is minnow soul?
Just rewatch this...
I think I didn't do such a good job on "are fields like the eather?"
I think they should actually be though of more as eternal objects: the electron field is the general possibility for the existence of electrons in the universe.
The electro-magnetic field is the possibility for the existence of light and warmth and x-rays and radio-waves etc...
So an e-m-waves "propagating as an excitation through the e-m-field" might not so much be a wave in a medium as a process happening from it's possibility (??)
I think that comes actually closer to the field-term as it's used in physics...
I will ask my physics-friends for help on that one. 🙂
I somehow didn't get back to your point of the highly ordered society sheltering more possibilities for novelty...
The point I wanted to come to was: that not every society functions as a complex amplifier (right?), rocks don't but cells (that have way fewer parts than a rock) do. And so I wonder: shouldn't we be able to tell by looking at a system, whether it functions as a komplex amplifier or not?
In other words: do you think we can tell the degree of mental capacity of "a society of events" or "a system" (can I use those words interchangeably?) by looking at its material ordering?
And my hunch is that the scale-free ordering might be crucial for the amplification...
I guess I will take that as a question into our next conversation. 😄
I think that Whitehead's metaphysics is not able of itself to sort out the muddles of quantum physics. The muddles of quantum physics have to be sorted out in terms of quantum physics.
I think I understand what you mean (interesting point!). And I think I agree. But I still hope/think, that Whitehead's framing of the problem could lead the way to the solution within QM.
... But I think I will have to think about that one.
Thx
@@FlavioLanfranconi Yes, Whitehead's metaphysics is a good platform for thinking, the best basis we have seen, but metaphysics is only about the platform for thinking, it's not the thinking itself.
What is Flavio's UA-cam channel?
It's @processingreality4947 ... and there's only one video up for now... But seeing the positive reactions here, I will have to add more, soon. ☺️🙏🏼
14:57 The classical/quantum problem is different.
0.Misunderstandings come from a methodological oversight.
1. The probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena by quantum theory implies the symmetry of the results: 50/50.
2. However, such an interpretation by quantum theory is a priori extrapolated to asymmetric phenomena.
3. For example, in the case of Schrodinger's cat, the radiation source is considered as a symmetrical/probabilistic (50/50) element of the experiment, however, it is combined with an asymmetric participant: a cat that, being alive or dead, has asymmetric states.
4. For clarity, you can “slightly” modify the experiment: place a dead cat in a "black box" with a radiation source. It seems that now even the most faithful follower of quantum theory will not claim that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time or will come to life in another universe.
{The cunning plan “B” with a sleeping cat is: “Sweeping garbage under the carpet.” (Feynman) and is addressed to inattentive (sleepy) followers of quantum theory.}
5. It is better to put illuminated photo paper in a drawer: it is unlikely that the paper will react to the actions of the 50/50 source in such a way as to become usable again.
Or a proton, an electron, an electron antineutrino and wait for the spontaneous appearance of a neutron.
6. Events and phenomena themselves exist independently of the frame of reference, but their specific manifestations and quantitative ratios in different frames of reference (attention!) they can be completely different.*
7. So, if in your frame of reference you observe / measure and/ or evaluate / identify the probabilistic nature of a certain physical process in another frame of reference, for example, for a coin: 50/50; then this is your right, since all frames of reference are equal (not to be confused with equivalence).
{By the way, entangled particles: each of the particles in its own frame of reference is equal with its spin, for example, up, with another particle with spin down, in a different coordinate system, but is not equivalent to the other.}
8. And in the system associated with the tossed coin, there is no probability: the usual natural physical process takes place here (there is no need to move to another universe**).
9. It is clear that this also applies to purely quantum objects, for example, to the process of their decay. On the one hand, collapse is the final stage of the evolution of the wave function, on the other hand, collapse - in quantum theory - is ignoring causality, since this “phenomenon” is assigned a zero time interval here.
10. Unfortunately, with all possible interpretations of quantum theory, the "tradition of one-sidedness”, unfortunately, stupidly/intrusively holds: for now.
Even in the multi-world and with the “appearance of properties in particles due to measurement", Bell, Wigner… Hence the “observer effect".
11.The uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of what probability/equivalence is.
In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate the absence of exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
12.Finally, the evaluation of the state function of the system under study (~ the universe) depends on the choice of the reference frame and coordinate system: the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device, a change in the physical /biological state of the observer, a change in the mental / intellectual state of the observer, that is, the detection of the next phase of evolution its own frame of reference;
- thanks to which measurement becomes possible!
13. Jokes with time asymmetry are inexcusable even for such a "blindly lucky quantum theory".
----------------
*) - The equations that formulate the laws of physics should be invariant with respect to any coordinate transformations: "Equality" and "the same flow of processes" are not analogous concepts: and the word "relativity" itself contributed to the confusion of the concepts of "relative motion" and "relativism of phenomena".
The relativity of motion determines the immutability of laws:
the ambiguity of the word "relativity", when the content changes depending on whether it is applied to motion or to the formulation of physical laws, caused many errors." (Tonnela, Updating the concept of relativity in Einstein's physics).
**) - When Einstein noted: "God does not play dice," Bohr pointed out: "One should not tell God how to rule the world."
However, Einstein apparently meant that there are no randomness for bones in their frame of reference.
The macroscopic apparatus consists of many atoms. It is not in a pure quantum state. That is to say, it is not quantum mechanically coherent with the microscopic quantum system, which is in a pure quantum state.
And how do we get rid of quantum-coherence?
Weave-function-collapse.
Decoherence also just washes out that problem, no? (I must say: jet another interpretation I don't seam to understand!?)
🧐
@@FlavioLanfranconi Great comment. Quantum coherence is partly about facts, and partly about knowledge of facts. Quantum coherence is partly a matter of conservation, partly a matter of actual timing. Coherence appears in two contexts. One, the Bell experiment. Two, laser activity. People muddle on about the Bell experiment, forgetting that coherence in that case is just a matter of conservation. They hide this from themselves by trying to be """objective""". Spin is conserved in the Bell situation.
@@FlavioLanfranconi Decoherence is just a consequence of a collision of two incoherent quantum systems, i.e. of systems not set up to be coherent.
@@FlavioLanfranconi 'Entanglement' is just a buzz-word for coherence.
@FlavioLanfranconi I would say that it is part of the definition of an isolated Whiteheadian occasion of experience, aka actual entity, that it is internally quantum mechanically self-coherent. In general, for an isolated macroscopic actual entity, we have no prospect of empirically verifying that self-coherence; we just assume it by definition. For a suitably small micriscopic actual entity, such as perhaps a hydrogen atom, we might be able to prepare it in a pure state, and that would certify for us that it was internally self-coherent. For an even smaller actual entity, such as a singlet pair of photons, we can experimentally verify its internal self-coherence. A quantum system in a pure state possesses a wave function. That is its certificate of internal self-coherence. For a quantum system not in a pure state, self-coherence is practically meaningless.