4 ms·

I strongly disagree with your last statement - physics explicitly _is_ formulated in terms that can be made into a lookup table (see phase spaces in classical m

I strongly disagree with your last statement - physics explicitly _is_ formulated in terms that can be made into a lookup table (see phase spaces in classical mechanics, for instance). My point is that there's a finite light cone of possible causal influences over you at any moment in time, and in principle you can break those down into state variables finely enough to predict future states of a person. This is isomorphic to a lookup table, albeit one we aren't able to construct right now. Im not suggesting it's enough to consider just the person in this scenario - the causal factors are part of the lookup.

imtringued 3y ago
How do you lookup quantum mechanics? Please tell the physicists about your breakthroughs.
- bubblyworld 3y ago
  No need, physicists already do this all the time - any computer simulation of quantum mechanical systems has to come to terms with the same problems (namely quantising the state space and representing the dynamics deterministically).
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Physicists simulate on computers only what can be, which is almost nothing. Consider obtaining the dynamics of water by simulating all its parts: proton flow, hydrogen bonding etc. of 10^{PHYSICALLY UNCOMPUTABLE} interactions. The simulations which do exist fail to model vast amounts. This is why, say, climate change is given as a prediction on temperature -- because it can be obtained as a mean which ignores "basically everything". And it can be easily show that the assumptions of QM are false if Hilbert space is computable (QM becomes non-linear); and of classical mechanics (which becomes non-deterministic); and so on. ie., that the issue isnt merely 10^{PHYSICALLY UNCOMPUTABLE} but that non-computable functions are essential to the formulation. The assertion that the world is computable is just that: there are no research projects, no textbooks, no experiments, no formalism to replace physics or anything like it -- nothing. All the basic assumptions of physics would have to be false, and we would have to have good reasons for supposing so. This is just nonsense. The world is geometrical as described by physics. It is not computational as described by the discrete mathematician whose megalomania and platonism knows no bounds.
    - bubblyworld 3y ago
      To be honest, I don't really understand what you mean by Hilbert spaces being computable, and what that has to do with the linearity of QM, determinism of classical mechanics, universe being geometrical and not computational etc. I'm familiar with all of those concepts, but not sure how they tie together here. If you have resources you could share I would appreciate it (I had little success with google).
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        computable = expressible as Int -> Int Hilbert space = set of functions in Real -> Real geometrical & non-computable = Reals determinism = g(x, t_future) fully set by g(x, t_now) and g if you model a geometric, g : Real -> Real with computable, c : Int -> Int then there are gaps at arbitrarily high precisions, say p (eg., p = delta(g, c) at (x, t)) construct a classical system of arbitrarily complexity (eg., 10^BIG interactions), describe each interaction with g. Since 10^BIG are required, "delta(g, c) < BIG" is required in order for the system to remain deterministic (ie., described by g). We can easily find cases where BIG > delta(g, c), so CM would be non-deterministic if g is replaced by c. As for QM, these "gaps" are cause much deeper contradictions with premises of QM. If you replace wavefunctions, g, with computable ones, c then they dont sum to solutions of the wave-eq, so QM fails to be linear (the detla(g,c) are massive because hibert space is infinite-dim). Now it might be that reality is really computable in the sense that there's some c which can replace g, but this would violate the assumptions of physics and has no motivation. Physics might be wrong, but there's no evidence of that. There are also other issues, but these are just two off the top of my head. Refences: Look for physical church-turing, church-turing thesis, non-det and det in chaos theory, non-det in classical mechanics, physical interpretations of the reals -- this will be in postgrad work, it wont be in popsci books.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        bubblyworld 3y ago
        > if you model a geometric, g : Real -> Real with computable, c : Int -> Int then there are gaps at arbitrarily high precisions, say p (eg., p = delta(g, c) at (x, t)) Nobody takes "computable approximation to g: R -> R" to mean "a computable function c: R* -> R" where R is the computable reals. There are many mathematical issues with this caused by self-referential programs (realised by Turing himself in "On Computable Numbers"). Typically you would model it as "c: R* x Q -> R*" where Q is a rational describing your desired precision, right? > Since 10^BIG are required, "delta(g, c) < BIG" is required in order for the system to remain deterministic (ie., described by g). I'm not sure what you mean by this - the computable approximation "c" is deterministic essentially by definition. If you mean "in order to remain within some bound of g" I can kinda see what you're saying but in that case you can interleave computations with smaller and smaller precisions (the "Q" I mentioned) in order to work around that issue, right? It won't be efficient, but it will certainly be computable. > Refences: Look for physical church-turing, church-turing thesis, non-det and det in chaos theory, non-det in classical mechanics, physical interpretations of the reals -- this will be in postgrad work, it wont be in popsci books. Thanks! I don't know much chaos theory, I'll have a look around for a good textbook. Edit: I just want to say - you have a pretty wild way of writing that makes it hard for me to tell if you're a crank or not. Either way, reading your posts here has given me a ton of food for thought =) what's your background?

imtringued 3y ago

How do you lookup quantum mechanics? Please tell the physicists about your breakthroughs.

bubblyworld 3y ago
No need, physicists already do this all the time - any computer simulation of quantum mechanical systems has to come to terms with the same problems (namely quantising the state space and representing the dynamics deterministically).
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Physicists simulate on computers only what can be, which is almost nothing. Consider obtaining the dynamics of water by simulating all its parts: proton flow, hydrogen bonding etc. of 10^{PHYSICALLY UNCOMPUTABLE} interactions. The simulations which do exist fail to model vast amounts. This is why, say, climate change is given as a prediction on temperature -- because it can be obtained as a mean which ignores "basically everything". And it can be easily show that the assumptions of QM are false if Hilbert space is computable (QM becomes non-linear); and of classical mechanics (which becomes non-deterministic); and so on. ie., that the issue isnt merely 10^{PHYSICALLY UNCOMPUTABLE} but that non-computable functions are essential to the formulation. The assertion that the world is computable is just that: there are no research projects, no textbooks, no experiments, no formalism to replace physics or anything like it -- nothing. All the basic assumptions of physics would have to be false, and we would have to have good reasons for supposing so. This is just nonsense. The world is geometrical as described by physics. It is not computational as described by the discrete mathematician whose megalomania and platonism knows no bounds.
  - bubblyworld 3y ago
    To be honest, I don't really understand what you mean by Hilbert spaces being computable, and what that has to do with the linearity of QM, determinism of classical mechanics, universe being geometrical and not computational etc. I'm familiar with all of those concepts, but not sure how they tie together here. If you have resources you could share I would appreciate it (I had little success with google).
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      computable = expressible as Int -> Int Hilbert space = set of functions in Real -> Real geometrical & non-computable = Reals determinism = g(x, t_future) fully set by g(x, t_now) and g if you model a geometric, g : Real -> Real with computable, c : Int -> Int then there are gaps at arbitrarily high precisions, say p (eg., p = delta(g, c) at (x, t)) construct a classical system of arbitrarily complexity (eg., 10^BIG interactions), describe each interaction with g. Since 10^BIG are required, "delta(g, c) < BIG" is required in order for the system to remain deterministic (ie., described by g). We can easily find cases where BIG > delta(g, c), so CM would be non-deterministic if g is replaced by c. As for QM, these "gaps" are cause much deeper contradictions with premises of QM. If you replace wavefunctions, g, with computable ones, c then they dont sum to solutions of the wave-eq, so QM fails to be linear (the detla(g,c) are massive because hibert space is infinite-dim). Now it might be that reality is really computable in the sense that there's some c which can replace g, but this would violate the assumptions of physics and has no motivation. Physics might be wrong, but there's no evidence of that. There are also other issues, but these are just two off the top of my head. Refences: Look for physical church-turing, church-turing thesis, non-det and det in chaos theory, non-det in classical mechanics, physical interpretations of the reals -- this will be in postgrad work, it wont be in popsci books.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - bubblyworld 3y ago
        > if you model a geometric, g : Real -> Real with computable, c : Int -> Int then there are gaps at arbitrarily high precisions, say p (eg., p = delta(g, c) at (x, t)) Nobody takes "computable approximation to g: R -> R" to mean "a computable function c: R* -> R" where R is the computable reals. There are many mathematical issues with this caused by self-referential programs (realised by Turing himself in "On Computable Numbers"). Typically you would model it as "c: R* x Q -> R*" where Q is a rational describing your desired precision, right? > Since 10^BIG are required, "delta(g, c) < BIG" is required in order for the system to remain deterministic (ie., described by g). I'm not sure what you mean by this - the computable approximation "c" is deterministic essentially by definition. If you mean "in order to remain within some bound of g" I can kinda see what you're saying but in that case you can interleave computations with smaller and smaller precisions (the "Q" I mentioned) in order to work around that issue, right? It won't be efficient, but it will certainly be computable. > Refences: Look for physical church-turing, church-turing thesis, non-det and det in chaos theory, non-det in classical mechanics, physical interpretations of the reals -- this will be in postgrad work, it wont be in popsci books. Thanks! I don't know much chaos theory, I'll have a look around for a good textbook. Edit: I just want to say - you have a pretty wild way of writing that makes it hard for me to tell if you're a crank or not. Either way, reading your posts here has given me a ton of food for thought =) what's your background?