[Fis] it from bit

[Stuart Kauffman]

Thanks Eric. The ontological reality of Potentia is critical. This interpretation by Heisenberg answers at least 5 or perhaps 6 of the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics: Which way information; null measurements; no facts of the matter between measurements (hence It from Bit); non-locality; why when one entangled variable is actualized the amplitudes of all the rest alter instantaneously. And maybe the Delayed Choice experiment.

If Res potentia and Res extensa is correct, it really does not inherit the Mind Body problem and it really does invite the hypothesis that Mind actualizes potentia.  This fits the recent results that almost rule out a physical cause of collapse of the wave function. A physical cause cannot convert a possible to an actual. And, as noted, Radin and others have experimental data using the two slit experiment that we can alter the outcome, data at 6.49 sigma. So: we all know that, “I choose between possiblities that are my options now, having decided I act. Thus I convert one of the Possibles in front of me into an Actual.”  Should we ignore this subjective data because it is not intersubjective? Given Radin’s data, why reject “I decide and act”, with responsible Free Will? Such a Responsible Will is ruled out in classical physics, and also QM if collapse of the wave function really is Random. But if Mind can influence the outcome, per Radin et al, responsible free will is not ruled out. So let’s get more data on this.

Another odd thought. Suppose we turn the responsible free will issue on its head? I have responsible free will. If rocks do not  have responsible free will, why not? The question provokes the start of at least a confused wondering:  A quartz crystal is a very simple system. My brain is made up of cells with thousands of different proteins, RNA, lipids, DNA. Both are simultaneously partly classical and partly quantum (decoherence is not complete). The quantum aspects of my brain must be more complex than that of a crystal. Do those facts matter? I find myself wondering: Do I have responsibility free will, but a crystal has a highly shackled free will? 


And if the above is correct, what is Information?

Stu

> On Jan 20, 2024, at 9:07 AM, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org> wrote:
> 
> And yet possibilities are real.  Perhaps more so than the actual 
> Eric 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2024, at 15:54, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Carlos and Lou. Hm. Res potentia and Res extensa is not a substance dualism because potentia are not substances. It is still a dualism I guess of "Possibles some of which become Actuals". In what sense do you think the same laws apply to both, QM vs Classical Physics. In one sense Yes: both live in the Newtonian Paradigm, and it is of real interest that there is the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” here. Hm, Lou too, does that suggest that if the set of Possibilities are bounded and not open, mathematics can work in definable ways that it cannot work if the The Possible is open and growing and cannot be deduced?
>> 
>> Stu 
>> 
>>> On Jan 20, 2024, at 3:55 AM, Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Stu,
>>> 
>>>> II.
>>>>  
>>>> Among the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, consider that of Heisenberg, 1958. The quantum state is a “potentia hovering ghost-like between an idea and reality”.  Potentia are neither true nor false. From this, Ruth Kastner, Mike Epperson and I have taken, “Res potentia, ontologically real Possibles, and Res extensia, ontologically real Actuals.  Res potentia and Res Extensia does not inherit the Mind Body Problem.  This interpretation of QM is not Cartesian substance dualism because potenta are not substances. It is not neutral monism, which lacks potentia. It is not materialism which lacks potentia, and it is not Idealism, which lacks Res Extensa.
>>> 
>>> Just a comment on this: Wouldn’t res extensia be a type/subset of res potentia? In this sense, you avoid the dualism: both are information, only one possible (and infinite) and another actual (and finite), but the same laws should apply to both.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Carlos
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>> 
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240120/49f1c678/attachment.html>