3 ms·

> how is it that we can have a whole population of systems (eg scientists) eventually coming to a consensus about some phenomenon Are the scientists interactin

> how is it that we can have a whole population of systems (eg scientists) eventually coming to a consensus about some phenomenon Are the scientists interacting? What is the barrier you see? I think the two systems interact simply means that any event you can measure is one you have interacted with (however indirectly). It isn't a limitation on the number of systems interacting with each other. > "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it." I guess RQM would say that this question isn't even wrong. I think the more concrete interpretation is being used. To "hear" something, you have interacted with it in some way. Not hearing something, in any way, simply means you have not yet interacted with it. There has been no exchange of information. It doesn't mean it didn't exist. The point that there is no privileged system or observer underlines that existence isn't tied to "observers". If both we and another civilization started sending radio signals into space on the same date, and on another future date both civilizations finally got the first signals from the other, neither detection caused the other civilization to come into existence. They both existed separately before the common detection. There is no privileged observer from whom to relate what exists or not by their observations. Yes, trees that fall in a forest without human beings cause vibrations. They interact with the forest around them. There is no observer-tron particle in humans that acts in a special way on events around us. But between a photon being emitted and absorbed (two bracketing events on its existence), we might say the photon's path is just those interactions, and there isn't anything to talk about between them. If it had no interactions with anything else between its two bracketing events. Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path.

yetihehe 2y ago
> Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. Be careful talking about graphs in physics or you might invoke one researcher who tried to push that analogy further [1], but apparently has too big ego for this. [1] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-h...
markisus 2y ago
I think I'm mostly with you except a couple things. > Are the scientists interacting? So say Alice and Bob interact, forming an event in RQM. Then they both separately interact with Charlie, generating two new events. These two new events are, in general, related (correlated) to each other, because they may be causally influenced by the original event. (For example, Alice tells Bob the number. They both send this number to Charlie.) > Not hearing something, in any way, simply means you have not yet interacted with it. There has been no exchange of information. It doesn't mean it didn't exist. My intuition agrees with yours here, but I think RQM is saying something different. The article says that in RQM, variables simply don't have any value unless a system acts on another system. Here is the relevant quote. > Variables have values when a system acts on another system. More precisely, for a system S to have a variable A taking a value is to interact with a second system S′; the variable A characterizes the effect of a certain action on S′ And about the tree falling in the forest, I take it to be more of a metaphysical question about existence. In the real world, a tree falling is an extremely complex system and will inevitably interact with many other systems -- the air, the ground, like you said. But the heart of the issue is whether it's meaningful to talk about a tree which is somehow isolated from the rest of the universe.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  > My intuition agrees with yours here, but I think RQM is saying something different. The article says that in RQM, variables simply don't have any value unless a system acts on another system. Here is the relevant quote. It is saying between the values defined at interaction events of particles, there isn’t any more information there. That has nothing to do with observability. They are saying that events are the information, not “things” between events. This is very different from whether we observe events or not. And any question as to whether interactions that we have observed directly or indirectly yet really exist, or are meaningful or not to talk about, would put us in the role of privileged, special observers. Which they explicitly rule out. Special observers has always been deeply problematic. If two people far apart in the universe have not yet interacted, which one isn’t somehow meaningful in any way that doesn’t just boil down to we have yet to have any information about them. So we can say that we don’t have information about things we don’t have information about yet. It’s a tautology. Layering any other interpretation on an already plain to understand tautology, that already describes the situation perfectly, is neither necessary, nor useful in any way. What other meaning or non-meaning could there be? What could that even reflect in the physics?
zmgsabst 2y ago
> If it had no interactions with anything else between its two bracketing events. > Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. How do you explain redshift from the universe expanding?
- Nevermark 2y ago
  Perhaps space and "particles" interact? There must be some kind of interaction since photons are energy and all energy not only travels through space but warps space. Gravity responds to all energy, not just mass. But more likely their interpretation would be that this is where the importance of "relative" comes in. Relative to us the particle has been red shifted, but that is because of our viewpoint from our space-time position and conditions of reception differ from its space-time point and conditions of emission. Or the relative topology between those events. But not because of any change in the photon during its journey.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    > Or the relative topology between those events. But the interaction is no longer simply a connection between us and the origin: the path along which the photon traveled changed our measurement. And indeed, different paths can change different portions of it, eg, if you have something like an Einstein ring where part of it passed through a dark matter filament. At the point where the entire path needs to be considered because it interacts with space while passing, I’m not sure what sense it can be described as “an edge like a graph”. That seems like a classic trajectory, ie, a continuous path.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      Did the path between emission and reception change the photon? Or did it change our relation to the photon? A simpler case of the latter is uncontroversial: If you move quickly away from a photon emitter, you will detect red-shifted photons. Clearly, the photons didn't change, only our relation to them. Energy, like everything else, is relative and appears to have different quantities in different situations. Strange as that seems, given conservation of energy still holds. But energy, just like space-time, is not "Euclidean".
the__alchemist 2y ago
> Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. I felt Wolfram Graph vibes reading this article. They seem like such a nice way to model discrete theories. I am also wondering if perhaps General Relativity could be modeled in a similar way - in a way that could be used to simulate N-body systems, vice the instantaneous Newtonian ones that are used in cosmology, and justified, IMO, on shaky grounds related to aberration. Indeed, the article mentions explicitly that RQM is related to quantum gravity.

yetihehe 2y ago

> Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. Be careful talking about graphs in physics or you might invoke one researcher who tried to push that analogy further [1], but apparently has too big ego for this. [1] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/ https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-h...

markisus 2y ago

I think I'm mostly with you except a couple things. > Are the scientists interacting? So say Alice and Bob interact, forming an event in RQM. Then they both separately interact with Charlie, generating two new events. These two new events are, in general, related (correlated) to each other, because they may be causally influenced by the original event. (For example, Alice tells Bob the number. They both send this number to Charlie.) > Not hearing something, in any way, simply means you have not yet interacted with it. There has been no exchange of information. It doesn't mean it didn't exist. My intuition agrees with yours here, but I think RQM is saying something different. The article says that in RQM, variables simply don't have any value unless a system acts on another system. Here is the relevant quote. > Variables have values when a system acts on another system. More precisely, for a system S to have a variable A taking a value is to interact with a second system S′; the variable A characterizes the effect of a certain action on S′ And about the tree falling in the forest, I take it to be more of a metaphysical question about existence. In the real world, a tree falling is an extremely complex system and will inevitably interact with many other systems -- the air, the ground, like you said. But the heart of the issue is whether it's meaningful to talk about a tree which is somehow isolated from the rest of the universe.

Nevermark 2y ago
> My intuition agrees with yours here, but I think RQM is saying something different. The article says that in RQM, variables simply don't have any value unless a system acts on another system. Here is the relevant quote. It is saying between the values defined at interaction events of particles, there isn’t any more information there. That has nothing to do with observability. They are saying that events are the information, not “things” between events. This is very different from whether we observe events or not. And any question as to whether interactions that we have observed directly or indirectly yet really exist, or are meaningful or not to talk about, would put us in the role of privileged, special observers. Which they explicitly rule out. Special observers has always been deeply problematic. If two people far apart in the universe have not yet interacted, which one isn’t somehow meaningful in any way that doesn’t just boil down to we have yet to have any information about them. So we can say that we don’t have information about things we don’t have information about yet. It’s a tautology. Layering any other interpretation on an already plain to understand tautology, that already describes the situation perfectly, is neither necessary, nor useful in any way. What other meaning or non-meaning could there be? What could that even reflect in the physics?

zmgsabst 2y ago

> If it had no interactions with anything else between its two bracketing events. > Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. How do you explain redshift from the universe expanding?

Nevermark 2y ago
Perhaps space and "particles" interact? There must be some kind of interaction since photons are energy and all energy not only travels through space but warps space. Gravity responds to all energy, not just mass. But more likely their interpretation would be that this is where the importance of "relative" comes in. Relative to us the particle has been red shifted, but that is because of our viewpoint from our space-time position and conditions of reception differ from its space-time point and conditions of emission. Or the relative topology between those events. But not because of any change in the photon during its journey.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > Or the relative topology between those events. But the interaction is no longer simply a connection between us and the origin: the path along which the photon traveled changed our measurement. And indeed, different paths can change different portions of it, eg, if you have something like an Einstein ring where part of it passed through a dark matter filament. At the point where the entire path needs to be considered because it interacts with space while passing, I’m not sure what sense it can be described as “an edge like a graph”. That seems like a classic trajectory, ie, a continuous path.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    Did the path between emission and reception change the photon? Or did it change our relation to the photon? A simpler case of the latter is uncontroversial: If you move quickly away from a photon emitter, you will detect red-shifted photons. Clearly, the photons didn't change, only our relation to them. Energy, like everything else, is relative and appears to have different quantities in different situations. Strange as that seems, given conservation of energy still holds. But energy, just like space-time, is not "Euclidean".

the__alchemist 2y ago

> Like a discrete edge in a simple graph, it is a connection between two nodes, there are no dynamics in between the nodes. An edge is just a connection, not a continuous path. I felt Wolfram Graph vibes reading this article. They seem like such a nice way to model discrete theories. I am also wondering if perhaps General Relativity could be modeled in a similar way - in a way that could be used to simulate N-body systems, vice the instantaneous Newtonian ones that are used in cosmology, and justified, IMO, on shaky grounds related to aberration. Indeed, the article mentions explicitly that RQM is related to quantum gravity.