MigL

" Some people just want to watch the World burn." Michael Cane ( as Alfred Pennyworth in The Dark Knight 2008 )

So ... what happened to @Anton Rize and @Time Traveler , the people who started this mess ? A little push-back and they quit for a couple of months ?

Ontology is one of those words I have no use for ( like 'Overton Window', 'Looksmaxxing' or 'Shadow Docket' ... who makes up this stuff ? ). As far as I'm concerned science deals with making models that describe how some aspects ( not all ) of reality work, using a tool called mathematics. It makes no attempt to describe what reality is. The one model cannot describe how all aspects of reality work, nor can it describe what reality is. The examples I previously used were Newton's Corpuscular Theory, and Huygens' Wave Theory, of light. We know that light is neither a particle, nor a wave, yet we can perform experiments that demonstrate aspects of both, such that, properly applied, both theories have invaluable predictive power Is there any 'ontology' attached to this ? The obvious answer is a resounding "NO'. ( nor is there a need for it ... my opinion )

This is a really bad example If you could obtain two identical samples of twine, right down to the atomic level, they would have exactly equivalent breaking points, solely due to VDW forces between atoms of constituent molecules. The causes for dissimilar breaks would be differing amounts and density of fibers in the twine, tears, dislocations and other damage to the fibers, even 'rotting' of the fibers or unequal pulling forces are some of the many causes of the apparent 'randomness'. Now if you had mentioned radioactive decay, I might have had to scramble to come up with a plausible ( but obviously not evidentiary ) QCD 'explanation. I know you can do better 🙂 .

People, or scientists, tend to use what they are familiar with to build models. When lasers/holography first hit mainstream popularity, I imagine some tried incorporating those ideas into theoretical Physics. With the mainstreaming of computers and data handling, others have tried ideas from cellular automata. That doesn't mean these attempts are worthless as some of these ideas have 'explained', or successfully modelled some aspects of our reality. I'm sure that's not what @studiot is objecting to. The problem, as I personally see it, arises when someone gets an idea from AI, and runs with it. Without knowing all the implications, or having the foundational knowledge for critical consideration, but counting on the AI to provide the 'back up' for the assertions

Well, since we are now clearly in the realm of opinions ... I don't particularly like, or dislike, the Many Worlds interpretation. Nor do I have any preference for any other interpretation of Quantum Theory. What I like to keep in mind is that these are interpretations of the theory, or mathematical model, not of reality itself. Reality acts the way it should; there are no other possible outcomes. It is the mathematical model that predicts other possible outcomes. And by that I don't mean 'hidden variables', but that the effects are intrinsic to themathematical tools we have available to use, such as @KJW 's example of the HUP arising from the maths. Many World would seem like such a waste, having an infinite amount of 'otherwhere' that cannot ever be causally known. I sometimes even question the idea of 'randomness', as either incomplete representation of the system in our model, or, again, inherent in the mathematics we use for our model, as I believe reality must be strictly causal. IOW, even what we consider 'random' events must have a cause. Also keep in mind this is opinion, so no evidence to back it up.

Ontology being a branch of Metaphysics. @Anton Rize , did I ever tell you what a T-shirt said about Metaphysics ? Its like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that might ( benefit of doubt ) not be there. That seems to fit your posts as well. you said I understand that as Einstein's Gravity is the geometry of space-time. Yet you claim You're welcome.

Yes you were. And I thought it was an excellent point; so I jumped in. Now, however, he seems to be pushing the concept that this 'computer' architecture does not underlie the universe, but in fact, is the universe. IOW, forget about reality ( what ontology ? ), it is all just a computer program, where change is just a 'shuffling' of memory locations, and the universe, including us, is just a virtual map. All without a single shred of evidence that points to such a conclusion. My priest has a similar theory about the universe, also without any evidence whatsoever. He calls his computer 'God'. ( it's easy to claim whatever you imagine; providing evidence for such claims is the hard part )

That may be fine and dandy in a game, but, in the actual universe involving horizons determined by the speed of light/causality, information transfer would necessitate superluminal transfers. Last I checked that was impossible. @studiot would like to know how the 'state variable' can be communicated to regions that are beyond the observable ( causality determined ) horizon. If no superluminal speeds are involved, you cannot have a global 'central cpu pulse' ( for the entire universe ). So are you wrong, or is relativity wrong ? ( I know which of the two has passed a hundred years of testing, and it's not your 'theory' )

These vulnerabilities were uncovered with AI assistance. Are they now doing 'gain of function' research with computational routines ? What could possibly go wrong ? I am reminded of Agent ( where have I heard that term ? ) Smith's evolution in Matrix II and III )

I'm not sure about this 'universe as a computational engine' analogy. What new predictions does it bring; and are they testable ? For example Maybe how an entropic optimization force as governed by the second law of infodynamics produces Newton's Gravity, or even Einstein's Gravity, both of which fail with Black Holes, but you are, nonetheless, extending the infodynamics theory to encompass Black Holes. Or for another example example Lossless compression simply rearranges data/information more efficiently. It gets rid of spaces, place holders, etc.; but the information is all still there. Lossy compression, like MP3, gets rid of data/information that the human ear can't pick up ( too bad for dogs ), so lossy information is a non-starter, as it violates unitarity of Quantum information at the creation of Black Holes ( not just in the evaporation phase of Hawking-Bekenstein theory ). My asking is just making a point. I'm not asking for another unsupported post taking up half the page; answer questions that have been posed, then move onto falsifiable parts of your 'theory'; don't just present the whole, and expect us to sort through the chaff. I don't know how you got on this time-travel tangent, but duplicating data structures is strictly forbidden in the past, future, or any time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates how closely you can know, and reproduce, Quantum states. So there will be no duplicating MigL of any kind ... (unless you have Star Trek's 'Heisenberg Compensators' in your Transporter )

Not even close. It is not a coincidence that 4D Psrudo-Remenian geometric mathematics can represent Einstein's gravitational model. But you need to keep in mind that this is the model, not the ontological reality. Furthermore, this model is not accurate in all applications, and fails spectacularly, in such cases, giving rise to infinities. What is the ontological realism of infinities ??? Probably to keep you from derailing the other thread with unrelated nonsense. Of course. And he's spot on.

Correct. As with everything else, it has to do with the specific regions of space-time that Noether can be applied to. Here is a quote from one of Markus' old posts, as he always does much better than me with explanations "At the heart of this issue is what the concept of energy-momentum physically means. To answer this, we must look at where the energy-momentum tensor actually comes from, and that is Noether’s theorem. What it tells us is that every continuous local symmetry is equivalent to a conserved local quantity; specifically, if a small enough local system is invariant under time translations, then there will be a conserved quantity associated with that system that reflects its total energy - that’s precisely the energy-momentum tensor. But the thing now is that - in general - only patches of Minkowski spacetime are time-translation invariant; if there is spacetime curvature, this symmetry does not exist, and hence neither does a consistent notion of energy-momentum associated with that region. What’s more, Noether’s theorem itself is only valid in Minkowski spacetime, too. Physically this means that energy-momentum conservation holds only locally, in small enough patches of flat spacetime. In larger curved regions it does not hold - not in the sense of it being violated, but in the sense of the very concept of energy-momentum conservation being meaningless. Saying that energy-moment should be conserved in curved spacetime simply does not make any physical or mathematical sense, right from the get-go. Mathematically speaking, it is no problem to solve the integral that sums the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor over an extended region of curved spacetime. It is in fact trivially easy, since it becomes immediately apparent that you are left with terms that do not vanish (a very insightful exercise to do, suitable even for beginners). That’s just a reflection of the underlying physics, not any issue with the maths." -Markus Henke

Not only that, but the law of conservation of mass/energy is, local, not global. IOW, it doesn't apply to the universe as a whole

Oh, you are so picky, studiot, 😄 . It's not his fault. That's what the AI told him. ( removing the bolding from headers doesn't cut it )

But you still haven't defended/answered questions posed to you in this thread ...

To be fair, it's not @Time Traveler waving his hands ... it's the AI he's using.

HaHa !

With very few exceptions, most Mathematical tools are developed in the 'abstract', without reference to any Physical systems. They are, then, applied to Physical systems to develop a model for those systems. When does the Ontology develop between those two steps, @Anton Rize . ( just expanding on Swansont's and studiot's posts; all three of us would like an answer )

Not quite. AI is not passive; it re-interprets, adds, and modifies. ( and why we have a rule against its use ) But that's not the crux of the argument. They call this 'the Motte and the Bailey'. When you can no longer defend a controversial claim ( the Bailey ), you retreat to a safer, more defensible, and less controversial position ( the Motte ).

Haven't read the paper. What animal does he torture in this interpretation ? 😄

Beautiful sunny 16o day here in the Niagara region ( between Lakes Erie and Ontario ) but it did go down to 4o last night. Yes, my furnace has been running for a while.

I hope you didn't get that impression from my post, because I attempted to explain how my perception of Philosophy has changed. Philosophy provides the paradigm for the sciences; the standard set of ideas, or thinking, that shapes how we view and understand the world. But, like studiot, I still find that T-shirt funny. ( but yeah, way off topic )

Exactly the same way other threads get policed. My impression of Philosophy wasn't always the best; I remember seeing a T-shirt that said Philosophy - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat Metaphysics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there Theology - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and announcing "I found it!" Physics - like being in a dark room looking for a black cat ... with a flashlight which made sense to me, as sciences, like Physics, are dependent on observational evidence. And although humorous, the above description of Philosophy isn't exactly accurate. Philosophy is more accurately like being in a dark room and thinking, or pondering, the ways to look for a black cat. ( which might include the use of a flashlight; and as always, I welcome your input @Eise )

Isn't Ontology a question for Epistemologists ? Seems to me that Mathematics, unlike Language, needs clearly stated definitions for everything, so as to avoid issues like the above mentioned. But sometimes those definitions can only 'dig down' so far before they start getting circular. But I'm a simple Physicist ( ? ) and out of my depth here. I would be interested in @Eise 's take on it.