So I thought Bell's theorem (which I don't remember and would need to refresh on the gist of the arguments), put to bed anything about hidden variables. So when I hear hidden vars, my ears prick up.
Yes, in my understanding the work behind the recent Nobel Prize closed almost all the loopholes, so really there are no Local Hidden Variables (LHV). But no Bell-Aspect experiment can rule out non-local HV's. The issue is that non-local HV's are a double slap in the face of "science". I certainly cannot tolerate any non-local physics whatsover, zero tolerance (since I'm a bit of an Einstein stan, a real throwback. LOL).
The Topological 4-geon theory --- I like to say --- gives a beautiful John Archibald Wheelerism: *Non-locality without non-locality*, and *Hidden without Hiding*. Wheeler's original was in geometrodynamics: "Mass without Mass" and "Charge without Charge". Wheeler was the GOAT Fumblerules prince of physics I reckon. (Thanks btw for that reference, had not heard before!)
The way it works in T4G is that we cannot ever "see" the wormhole ER=EPR structure. This is due to a theorem of Geroch, called "topological censorship" —any classical probe of a minimal (hence Hawking stable) wormhole will collapse the wormhole (change the topology). ok, but you still know the wormholes are there, indirectly (precisely due to Bell pair entanglement, there is hardly any other realist explanation in 4D spacetime). So the wormholes are "Hidden" but not Hiding. But then you should also easily see why it is non-locality without non-locality: qubits can traverse the ER bridges, since the qubits are just internal states of the spinor fields (instructions for frame rotations) --- but again, if your theory has no way to compute things using the ER bridge topology, since such topology is not directly observable, then you cannot get the data on them, then the physics will appear non-local, even though transmission through a wormhole is entirely local.
Put in other words: a Minkowski spacetime topology (trivial topology) model has to figure the information gets around via weird non-locality, but the T4G idea is that the Minkowski topology is false, and the transmissions are just local physics "through the wormhole". I love the Alice in Wonderland imagery of it all! hahaha. Hence T4G is local realism. But it shows you that from a strictly Minkowski or trivial topology frame things will look like non-local HVs. It is just a misconception though. Like people thinking gold is the money and the government can be bankrupt. LOL.
BTW, I have thoughts about how "free will" is possible (causally efficacious) even though T4G seems to restore a type of Block Universe determinism, while Hamiltonian time evolution is strictly nondeterministic still. But that's for another day.
Hiding in plain sight. Ninja or Obi-Wan physics it is!
"These are not the pathways you are looking for"
I have oddball unwashed ideas like:
If chaotic systems can be deterministic but unpredictable, is God having it both ways with dice? One would have to admire that kind of sense of humor.
What does it really mean to speak of matter and space as separate? For instance, if you had a universe with two particles in it, what is distance? How would it even exist? How about 3 particles? 10?
I'd have to dredge up ideas about free-will or not. Sabine is good for that topic. You have to be kind here, and expect most of the names (Minkowski) would mean me diving the net for hours probably try to get a gist of what you mean LOL
--
Sigh, it would have been better if I had the math for topics that now interest me. It's hard trying to dust off starting points to get to them that long ago decayed.
--
In some other context, I'd like to gnaw on definitions and implication of effects tax (specifically demurrage) vs inflation vs interest. Each can be said to "do" similar things, but they are different.
Yes, I am self-aware when I write that I'm not making the ideas self-contained. "Minkowski" can just mean a spacetime with "no holes". Which really means, no "particles". Yes, I truly cannot grok how matter can be different to the substrate of spacetime. If particles *can* be modelled as topology, then I think that's a huge clue they *are* topology. Basically via a parsimony argument (which although Popper might have said is verificationist and so "not science".... fudge him! LOL.) The idea matter fields are a separate reality "living upon spacetime" tastes of Ptolemaic epicycle physics to me (string theory and Wolfram hypergraphs, etc), which is to say it might be computationally predictive, but I do not trust the ontology.
Just imho, chaos does not get us freedom. But does give us life, via complexity. So it would not be God having a laugh, but rather God being elegant and merciful, imho. The true laugh is on all of us who think we know what dice God uses. However, I still agree with Einstein. See further remarks below, but the gist is our future is all determined... but... our soul (source of free will etc.) is one agency that did the determination already. We did it in the future. That'd be my offering to the philosophers, take it or leave it! I cannot find anyone who will vouch for my sanity or verisimilitude of my ideas to reality, the best I can say is that at least no one is paying me to think, and I don't want them to, so there is some minimal purity of thought here amongst the crackpotness.
The only determinism I think rigorously holds is asymptotic, meaning the Block Universe. That was Einstein's conception, the 4D cosmos exists as a whole, and so we are just experiencing what is destined to be. But that is a physics stance, not a spiritual stance. Given a Block Universe, there are ways one can recover causal efficacy of (nonphysical) consciousness. Namely at the boundaries of spacetime. (Or somewhat more weirdly, using David Chalmers' idea of bridging laws. But that seems a bit gross and inelegant to my mind.) To be slightly more agnostic, it is simply a fact that there is no known physics that tells us a nonphysical reality can have no physical causal efficacy. And the Block Universe idea is, I think, the most extreme case to study to see why, since there is almost nothing more superdetermined than the Block Universe. (Apologies if you need to DuckDuckGo for that!)
To very briefly and incompletely try to explain that, I'll just say that in "superdeterminism" all you would need is that one of the phenomena that determines spacetime *is* conscious agency, and *if* spacetime has a boundary (even if at spacelike or timelike infinity) then that is where the interactions can occur. John Wheeler, i like to think, would have agreed. He quipped once, probably very seriously, when asked why the cosmological constant is positive and yet so very small, "It is because of a measurement someone will make in the far future."
I know this seems very weird, but the idea is that psychological time is an experience of your free will, but your conscious agency (call it a "soul" — and who the heck knows what that word means! Just it cannot be a process in the brain is all, since processes cannot "feel") ... your conscious agency has acted at the spacetime boundaries, to determine the boundary conditions the laws of physics by definition cannot provide.
Hope that makes some sense. Normally I do not write philosophy *for* anyone, only for my own amusement, since what I write *for* someone I would rather prefer to be true to some degree and useful. I guess some whimsical philosophy can be useful as entertainment though, right? Like your WoW. In the case of the physics underlying all this, the T4G stuff, I regard that as useful philosophy only because the mathematical physics has not yet been tidied up, so the philosophical musings are motivation, I hope, for a decent mathematician.
I'll mildly waver about Sabine, she has had some pretty bad takes (on "capitalism" for instance) and she is way beyond her expertise when mentioning "free will" --- and heck, isn't everyone?! You cannot say something you cannot define does not exist. Sometimes she seems to take an agnostic view, and that I am ok with. The thing is, in the moral/ethical/spiritual realm (by which I just mean the abstractions of honesty, kindness, wisdom, love, mercy, humility, etc.) I do not think a hard nosed empiricism or "shut-up-and-calculate" attitude is very useful. The physics is more like the backing, the material base, to defeat raw Idealism. But what drives things at the "boundaries" of spacetime is anyone's guess... if one is being honest and humble, wouldn't you say?
It looks like "that guy" (Einstein) is getting some revenge. I really like the idea of him being right in some way, at least with dice games.
I don't have enough background to substantially follow these topics. It's refreshing to see new thinking in physics.
Many worlds is great for science fiction franchises, but is a very big ask.
My thoughts almost exactly! :)
So I thought Bell's theorem (which I don't remember and would need to refresh on the gist of the arguments), put to bed anything about hidden variables. So when I hear hidden vars, my ears prick up.
I mean, please indulge me if you can stand it..
Yes, in my understanding the work behind the recent Nobel Prize closed almost all the loopholes, so really there are no Local Hidden Variables (LHV). But no Bell-Aspect experiment can rule out non-local HV's. The issue is that non-local HV's are a double slap in the face of "science". I certainly cannot tolerate any non-local physics whatsover, zero tolerance (since I'm a bit of an Einstein stan, a real throwback. LOL).
The Topological 4-geon theory --- I like to say --- gives a beautiful John Archibald Wheelerism: *Non-locality without non-locality*, and *Hidden without Hiding*. Wheeler's original was in geometrodynamics: "Mass without Mass" and "Charge without Charge". Wheeler was the GOAT Fumblerules prince of physics I reckon. (Thanks btw for that reference, had not heard before!)
The way it works in T4G is that we cannot ever "see" the wormhole ER=EPR structure. This is due to a theorem of Geroch, called "topological censorship" —any classical probe of a minimal (hence Hawking stable) wormhole will collapse the wormhole (change the topology). ok, but you still know the wormholes are there, indirectly (precisely due to Bell pair entanglement, there is hardly any other realist explanation in 4D spacetime). So the wormholes are "Hidden" but not Hiding. But then you should also easily see why it is non-locality without non-locality: qubits can traverse the ER bridges, since the qubits are just internal states of the spinor fields (instructions for frame rotations) --- but again, if your theory has no way to compute things using the ER bridge topology, since such topology is not directly observable, then you cannot get the data on them, then the physics will appear non-local, even though transmission through a wormhole is entirely local.
Put in other words: a Minkowski spacetime topology (trivial topology) model has to figure the information gets around via weird non-locality, but the T4G idea is that the Minkowski topology is false, and the transmissions are just local physics "through the wormhole". I love the Alice in Wonderland imagery of it all! hahaha. Hence T4G is local realism. But it shows you that from a strictly Minkowski or trivial topology frame things will look like non-local HVs. It is just a misconception though. Like people thinking gold is the money and the government can be bankrupt. LOL.
BTW, I have thoughts about how "free will" is possible (causally efficacious) even though T4G seems to restore a type of Block Universe determinism, while Hamiltonian time evolution is strictly nondeterministic still. But that's for another day.
Hiding in plain sight. Ninja or Obi-Wan physics it is!
"These are not the pathways you are looking for"
I have oddball unwashed ideas like:
If chaotic systems can be deterministic but unpredictable, is God having it both ways with dice? One would have to admire that kind of sense of humor.
What does it really mean to speak of matter and space as separate? For instance, if you had a universe with two particles in it, what is distance? How would it even exist? How about 3 particles? 10?
I'd have to dredge up ideas about free-will or not. Sabine is good for that topic. You have to be kind here, and expect most of the names (Minkowski) would mean me diving the net for hours probably try to get a gist of what you mean LOL
--
Sigh, it would have been better if I had the math for topics that now interest me. It's hard trying to dust off starting points to get to them that long ago decayed.
--
In some other context, I'd like to gnaw on definitions and implication of effects tax (specifically demurrage) vs inflation vs interest. Each can be said to "do" similar things, but they are different.
Good stuff.
Yes, I am self-aware when I write that I'm not making the ideas self-contained. "Minkowski" can just mean a spacetime with "no holes". Which really means, no "particles". Yes, I truly cannot grok how matter can be different to the substrate of spacetime. If particles *can* be modelled as topology, then I think that's a huge clue they *are* topology. Basically via a parsimony argument (which although Popper might have said is verificationist and so "not science".... fudge him! LOL.) The idea matter fields are a separate reality "living upon spacetime" tastes of Ptolemaic epicycle physics to me (string theory and Wolfram hypergraphs, etc), which is to say it might be computationally predictive, but I do not trust the ontology.
Just imho, chaos does not get us freedom. But does give us life, via complexity. So it would not be God having a laugh, but rather God being elegant and merciful, imho. The true laugh is on all of us who think we know what dice God uses. However, I still agree with Einstein. See further remarks below, but the gist is our future is all determined... but... our soul (source of free will etc.) is one agency that did the determination already. We did it in the future. That'd be my offering to the philosophers, take it or leave it! I cannot find anyone who will vouch for my sanity or verisimilitude of my ideas to reality, the best I can say is that at least no one is paying me to think, and I don't want them to, so there is some minimal purity of thought here amongst the crackpotness.
The only determinism I think rigorously holds is asymptotic, meaning the Block Universe. That was Einstein's conception, the 4D cosmos exists as a whole, and so we are just experiencing what is destined to be. But that is a physics stance, not a spiritual stance. Given a Block Universe, there are ways one can recover causal efficacy of (nonphysical) consciousness. Namely at the boundaries of spacetime. (Or somewhat more weirdly, using David Chalmers' idea of bridging laws. But that seems a bit gross and inelegant to my mind.) To be slightly more agnostic, it is simply a fact that there is no known physics that tells us a nonphysical reality can have no physical causal efficacy. And the Block Universe idea is, I think, the most extreme case to study to see why, since there is almost nothing more superdetermined than the Block Universe. (Apologies if you need to DuckDuckGo for that!)
To very briefly and incompletely try to explain that, I'll just say that in "superdeterminism" all you would need is that one of the phenomena that determines spacetime *is* conscious agency, and *if* spacetime has a boundary (even if at spacelike or timelike infinity) then that is where the interactions can occur. John Wheeler, i like to think, would have agreed. He quipped once, probably very seriously, when asked why the cosmological constant is positive and yet so very small, "It is because of a measurement someone will make in the far future."
I know this seems very weird, but the idea is that psychological time is an experience of your free will, but your conscious agency (call it a "soul" — and who the heck knows what that word means! Just it cannot be a process in the brain is all, since processes cannot "feel") ... your conscious agency has acted at the spacetime boundaries, to determine the boundary conditions the laws of physics by definition cannot provide.
Hope that makes some sense. Normally I do not write philosophy *for* anyone, only for my own amusement, since what I write *for* someone I would rather prefer to be true to some degree and useful. I guess some whimsical philosophy can be useful as entertainment though, right? Like your WoW. In the case of the physics underlying all this, the T4G stuff, I regard that as useful philosophy only because the mathematical physics has not yet been tidied up, so the philosophical musings are motivation, I hope, for a decent mathematician.
I'll mildly waver about Sabine, she has had some pretty bad takes (on "capitalism" for instance) and she is way beyond her expertise when mentioning "free will" --- and heck, isn't everyone?! You cannot say something you cannot define does not exist. Sometimes she seems to take an agnostic view, and that I am ok with. The thing is, in the moral/ethical/spiritual realm (by which I just mean the abstractions of honesty, kindness, wisdom, love, mercy, humility, etc.) I do not think a hard nosed empiricism or "shut-up-and-calculate" attitude is very useful. The physics is more like the backing, the material base, to defeat raw Idealism. But what drives things at the "boundaries" of spacetime is anyone's guess... if one is being honest and humble, wouldn't you say?