[Fis] it from bit

Sun Jan 21 15:37:36 CET 2024

Stuart, Advanced Yogis report the experience of a state,
in which All Time appears to be contained within them.
The Sanskrit literature compares the concepts of 'Kala',
time, with 'Mahakala', beyond time.
>From the latter perspective, the idea that we are within
a 'flowing time' dimension appears to be an illusion.
Then, if the concept is an illusion, it should not
require an Objective Explanation.
But maybe this is an unreasonable
way to duck your question!
Another point can be made, however.
When Special Relativity is formulated in terms of Group Theory
the SO(3) x U(1) group of Newtonian physics is replaced by
the SO(3, 1) group of Special Relativity, which assigns 'time'
a dimension equivalent to those of Space, yet distinct from them.
Time can then assume a dimension in General Relativity, subject
to the Contravariant and Covariant procedures that are required
in the mathematics of that subject - those of a topological (3,1)
manifold, as I recall from my course at MIT, 55 years ago
under Professor Philip Morrison.
Best wishes,
Alex
P.S. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morrison__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WD6bD8jMaHQsotJdqkFW4mpuNRTWZYd-eDH9pTmzxF7Jo_7eSKbkX4OJ-mCGuUzB5NpJpzIJ4LLlNbC-cJCpfw$ 
is very interesting. I had no idea about any of it
when I was at MIT. He arrived about
the same time as I did.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 19:34, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Alex assuming time “flows” is a major assumption.. And how do we get from
> flowing time in QM to time as a dimension in GR?  Stu
>
> On Jan 20, 2024, at 9:52 PM, Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RE: (One 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.
> ME: Why do you consider 'Time, t' an objectively real variable?
> It's 'objectivity' is an unacknowledged assumption throughout physics, but
> no one has ever bothered to think through any of the good alternatives,
> and publish on the question.
> Alex
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 23:54, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> ----------
>>
>
>
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) DSc. (Hon Causa)
> Board Member Ayushman India (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ayushmanindia.in__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WD6bD8jMaHQsotJdqkFW4mpuNRTWZYd-eDH9pTmzxF7Jo_7eSKbkX4OJ-mCGuUzB5NpJpzIJ4LLlNbBaHyhv7Q$ )
> Teacher Yoga Pratyahara and True Dhyana Meditation (50 years)
> Professor Emeritus of Biology,
> MIT World Peace University,
> 124 Paud Road, Pune, MA 411038
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
> WhatsApp: as for Mobile, India
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WD6bD8jMaHQsotJdqkFW4mpuNRTWZYd-eDH9pTmzxF7Jo_7eSKbkX4OJ-mCGuUzB5NpJpzIJ4LLlNbDByA1p9A$ >
>
>
>

-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) DSc. (Hon Causa)
Board Member Ayushman India (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ayushmanindia.in__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WD6bD8jMaHQsotJdqkFW4mpuNRTWZYd-eDH9pTmzxF7Jo_7eSKbkX4OJ-mCGuUzB5NpJpzIJ4LLlNbBaHyhv7Q$ )
Teacher Yoga Pratyahara and True Dhyana Meditation (50 years)
Professor Emeritus of Biology,
MIT World Peace University,
124 Paud Road, Pune, MA 411038
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
WhatsApp: as for Mobile, India
____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WD6bD8jMaHQsotJdqkFW4mpuNRTWZYd-eDH9pTmzxF7Jo_7eSKbkX4OJ-mCGuUzB5NpJpzIJ4LLlNbDByA1p9A$ >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240121/8a42d0a8/attachment-0001.html>