4 ms·

I dislike the cybernetic approach because I find that it first commits to epistemic helplessness, saying that we know nothing of particles. Perhaps that was rea

I dislike the cybernetic approach because I find that it first commits to epistemic helplessness, saying that we know nothing of particles. Perhaps that was reasonable when QM was so young, but these days we can use QM for a better answer. This isn't complete, but it helps a lot. First, note that CPT-symmetry can be extended up to the macroscopic level. Einstein's thought experiments about time involve macroscopic entanglement. For example, given that a red ball and a blue ball are each in their own boxes, and one possesses one box, then the box is entangled to have either a red or blue ball inside. We can use linear logic to reason about these situations; one holds the multiplicative disjunction of red and blue. Second, note that in order to make MWI's numbers work, we need not just branching of possibilities, but also coalescing. Imagine that, in empty space, we suddenly have a single virtual-particle pair; the diagram would look like () with time vertical. At the beginning, we have one universe; during the split, two universes, one for each chirality of the pair; afterwards, one universe. When we split, the probabilities of each possible universe decrease. Now, imagine doing this with more pairs, and verify that the Binomial Theorem manifests. This gives the same rise to macrostate-like entropy as Boltzmann's approach to thermodynamics, but only using QM particles and QM logic; a QM state is likelier when more of the many worlds in MWI would support its existence. Putting these together, we may conclude that Loschmidt's paradox is an incomplete part of a bigger paradoxical complaint: We can see that there are time-reversible and time-irreversible behaviors, both in particles and in macroscopic systems. The time-reversible behaviors seem to govern resources; the time-irreversible behaviors seem to govern entropy. The two logics for these two sets of behaviors are distinct; linear logic and intuitionistic logic can intertwine, but here they don't appear to do so. Why not?

ethn 7y ago
> I dislike the cybernetic approach because I find that it first commits to epistemic helplessness The confusion here is that my statement has nothing to do with cybernetics. Although it’s taken from his book titled Cybernetics, almost 60% of the book isn’t about cybernetics but instead a philosophy and analysis of Science as it progresses through history. Though it’s fair to Wiener to preemptively note there is no failure in epistemology in one of the most successful theories which holds ground in neurons, to electrical circuits, traffic engineering, the abstract feedback loop. There’s no assumption that “we know nothing of particles”. Wiener originally wrote the book in 1948 and completed the second edition in 1961. He made significant contributions to quantum mechanics[0]. It’s quite suspect to make such a defamatory remark about Wiener’s cybernetics given his quantum knowledge and the field as a whole. In fact, what would cybernetics possibly be predicting about the interactions between a particular system of which each component cannot exhibit a property? Surely some property must be being reinforced by means of itself or another auxiliary property. QM & Cybernetics answer completely separate questions. You’re missing the bigger picture. The irreversibility in any physical phenomenon is only through scientific paradigms which are probabilistic—such as thermodynamics, temperature, cloud, turbulence etc. These concepts are simply more powerful in dynamical systems, which are always due to microscopic phenomena, where there are no analytical, deterministic solutions for the otherwise favored deterministic paradigms (e.g. three-body problem). “while when a great number of atoms (of the order of Avogadro’s number) is considered, this energy related to irreversibility becomes so large that its order of magnitude must be taken into account. Consequently, macroscopic irreversibility results related to microscopic irreversibility by flows of photons and amount of atoms involved in the processes.” [0] https://www.ams.org/books/psapm/052/psapm052-endmatter.pdf https://www.ams.org/books/psapm/052/psapm052-endmatter.pdf [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35796 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35796

ethn 7y ago

> I dislike the cybernetic approach because I find that it first commits to epistemic helplessness The confusion here is that my statement has nothing to do with cybernetics. Although it’s taken from his book titled Cybernetics, almost 60% of the book isn’t about cybernetics but instead a philosophy and analysis of Science as it progresses through history. Though it’s fair to Wiener to preemptively note there is no failure in epistemology in one of the most successful theories which holds ground in neurons, to electrical circuits, traffic engineering, the abstract feedback loop. There’s no assumption that “we know nothing of particles”. Wiener originally wrote the book in 1948 and completed the second edition in 1961. He made significant contributions to quantum mechanics[0]. It’s quite suspect to make such a defamatory remark about Wiener’s cybernetics given his quantum knowledge and the field as a whole. In fact, what would cybernetics possibly be predicting about the interactions between a particular system of which each component cannot exhibit a property? Surely some property must be being reinforced by means of itself or another auxiliary property. QM & Cybernetics answer completely separate questions. You’re missing the bigger picture. The irreversibility in any physical phenomenon is only through scientific paradigms which are probabilistic—such as thermodynamics, temperature, cloud, turbulence etc. These concepts are simply more powerful in dynamical systems, which are always due to microscopic phenomena, where there are no analytical, deterministic solutions for the otherwise favored deterministic paradigms (e.g. three-body problem). “while when a great number of atoms (of the order of Avogadro’s number) is considered, this energy related to irreversibility becomes so large that its order of magnitude must be taken into account. Consequently, macroscopic irreversibility results related to microscopic irreversibility by flows of photons and amount of atoms involved in the processes.” [0] https://www.ams.org/books/psapm/052/psapm052-endmatter.pdf https://www.ams.org/books/psapm/052/psapm052-endmatter.pdf [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35796 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35796