Hi. It's me again.
You may know me from my previous thread "I don't think space is expanding".
Well, here's another idea for you. Background: when I first came up with this, it was in the context of photons work on electrons, and gravitons must work on photons, so .... what we see is actually the output of a machine like that?
At first I thought this was some wild ground breaking idea, but as I talked to others about it, it turns out this is what Plato and Kant and Leibniz and whole bunch of other people were on about, so much so that it's called the "perennial philosophy".
Ok, enough woo. Let's get to the sauce.
Turns out, this is also what Hugh Everett was on about.
* Everett, Hugh, (1957) "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454462.
For some reason (mainly a dude named Dewitt), everyone thinks Everett was on about many worlds. The "Everett" interpretation and MWI are now synonymous. This is a big mistake.
Here is page 9:
Ok... this dude is literally .... in 1957... saying stuff about modeling a neural network inside a particle simulation.
We clearly are a ways away from doing that in 2020.
No wonder no one had any idea of what he was really talking about.
Over the next 50 years, I think you'll see this concept of a mathematical model making measurements of itself from the inside become self-evident.
For now, people will think this is woo, and go on thinking that parallel universes are real.
You may know me from my previous thread "I don't think space is expanding".
Well, here's another idea for you. Background: when I first came up with this, it was in the context of photons work on electrons, and gravitons must work on photons, so .... what we see is actually the output of a machine like that?
At first I thought this was some wild ground breaking idea, but as I talked to others about it, it turns out this is what Plato and Kant and Leibniz and whole bunch of other people were on about, so much so that it's called the "perennial philosophy".
Ok, enough woo. Let's get to the sauce.
Turns out, this is also what Hugh Everett was on about.
* Everett, Hugh, (1957) "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454462.
For some reason (mainly a dude named Dewitt), everyone thinks Everett was on about many worlds. The "Everett" interpretation and MWI are now synonymous. This is a big mistake.
Here is page 9:
Quote:
|
Observation We have the task of making deductions about the appearance of phenomena to observers which are considered as purely physical systems and are treated within the theory. It will suffice for our purposes to consider the observers to possess memo- ries (i.e., parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are in correspon- dence with past experience of the observers). In order to make deductions about the past experience of an observer it is sufficient to deduce the present contents of the memory as it appears within the mathematical model. As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func- tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations. We can further suppose that the machine is so constructed that its present actions shall be determined not only by its present sensory data, but by the contents of its memory as well. Such a machine will then be capable of performing a sequence of observations (measurements), and furthermore of deciding upon its future experiments on the basis of past results. If we consider that current sensory data, as well as machine configuration, is im- mediately recorded in the memory, then the actions of the machine at a given instant can be regarded as a function of the memory contents only, and all relavant [sic] experience of the machine is contained in the memory. For such machines we are justified in using such phrases as "the machine has perceived A" or "the machine is aware of A" if the occurrence of A is represented in the memory, since the future behavior of the machine will be based upon the occurrence of A. In fact, all of the customary language of subjective experience is quite applicable to such machines, and forms the most natural and useful mode of expression when dealing with their behavior, as is well known to individuals who work with complex automata. The symbols A, B, ..., C, which we assume to be ordered time-wise, there- fore stand for memory configurations which are in correspondence with the past experience of the observer. These configurations can be regarded as punches in a paper tape, impressions on a magnetic reel, configurations of a relay switching circuit, or even configurations of brain cells. We require only that they be capable of the interpretation "The observer has experienced the succession of events A, B,..., C." The mathematical model seeks to treat the interaction of such observer systems with other physical systems (observations), within the framework of Process 2 wave mechanics, and to deduce the resulting memory configura- tions, which are then to be interpreted as records of the past experiences of the observers. |
We clearly are a ways away from doing that in 2020.
No wonder no one had any idea of what he was really talking about.
Over the next 50 years, I think you'll see this concept of a mathematical model making measurements of itself from the inside become self-evident.
For now, people will think this is woo, and go on thinking that parallel universes are real.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3hjlkxV
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire