Re: AI and cognitive psychology rant (getting more and more OT - tell me if I should shut up)

From: Stephen Horne (steve_at_ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: 10/26/03

  • Next message: Todd Stephens: "Re: Newbie Questions: Swithing from Perl to Python" 
    Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:13:31 +0000

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:03:34 +0100, Robin Becker
    <robin@jessikat.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

    >In article <3f8lpvsddmeltg69vkl2uu8u8cei7bb2cg@4ax.com>, Stephen Horne
    ><steve@ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> writes
    >>As I already mentioned, if a primitive person observes a car and
    >>theorises that there is a demon under the hood, that does not become
    >>true. Reality does not care about anyones perceptions as it is not
    >>dependent on them in any way - perceptions are functionally dependent
    >>on reality, and our perceptions are designed to form a useful model of
    >>reality.
    >We observe electrons and make up mathematical theories etc etc, but in
    >reality little demons are driving them around. :)
    >
    >Your assertion that there is an objective reality requires proof as
    >well. Probably it cannot be proved, but must be made an axiom. The
    >scientific method requires falsifiability.

    I can't proove it exactly, but I think I can show the alternative to
    be logically inconsistent quite simply.

    If you assert that there is no objective reality - only perception -
    then I have as much right to claim assert my perceptions as anyone
    else. And I percieve that there is an objective reality.

    >The fact is we cannot perceive well enough to determine reality. The
    >physicists say that observation alters the result so if Heisenberg is
    >right there is no absolute reality. Perhaps by wishing hard I can get my
    >batteries to last longer 1 time in 10^67.

    If that were true, why should it only work 1 time in 10^67?

    As I said before, the limit of the accuracy of our perceptions is
    basically the limit of information processing. *Not* information
    theory - we need machinery to do the processing. That machinery has
    limits, cannot be perfect, and thus is pretty well optimised to
    achieve a purpose as well as possible without the need to be perfect.
    The reason it can't percieve quantum effects is because we have no
    evolutionary need to percieve things at that level, and thus have no
    senses etc etc to deal with them.

    Quantum effects are actually a good example, so lets take a look...

    Yes, a particle may have two or more states at the same time. But once
    *any* observer observes that particle, it resolves to the same state
    for *all* observers. Individual observers cannot choose for themselves
    what to perceive.

    Still, it is worth asking what is so special about this observer. What
    makes a particular arrangement of matter special, so that it can
    'observe' while other arrangements cannot. Is it some mystic
    metaphysical conscience, as many have asserted, or is it perhaps
    nothing magical at all, and nothing to do with mind?

    I tend to go with Penrose on this. That is, a superposition of states
    has strict limits with respect to gravity. Whenever particles are in a
    superposition, space-time must also be in a superposition. Particles
    therefore have different levels of gravitational energy in each
    superposition. This creates an uncertainty in the system. And as
    Heisenberg states, a large uncertainty can only exist for a short
    time.

    Thus the reason why Schrodingers cat cannot be alive and dead at the
    same time (at least for more than a tiny fraction of a second) is
    because, as with any 'observer', it has a significant mass and
    therefore the alive and dead superpositions create too much
    uncertainty in spacetime.

    Observers are nothing more than large masses that don't stay in
    superposition states for significant times, and thus once the observer
    (or cat, or for that matter vial of poison) is superposed the whole
    system must rapidly resolve to one state or another because of the
    scale of uncertainty involved in spacetime.

    But it is easier to handle Schrodingers cat that that. According to
    the thought experiment, any observation - no matter how indirect -
    resolves the state of the system. But at the microscopic scale, that
    is simply not the case - superposed particles interact with each other
    in ways that allow the superposition of states to be detected, or else
    the there could be no experimental proof of superpositions. There is
    no such experimental proof at macroscopic scales, thus the same kind
    of superposition simply cannot be happening (at perceptible
    timescales) at the macroscopic scale.

    Just as with relativity, the observer is certainly important but not
    defining except in an extremely restricted way. There is a reality
    which the observer is observing, and which the observer cannot define
    arbitrarily.

    Consciousness is not magic. Brains, like the rest of the body, are
    just another arrangement of matter - certainly a complex and useful
    arrangement, but it is still obeying (not defining) the rules layed
    down by the universe we live in. There is nothing special about people
    which lets them arbitrarily define the universe.

    >Awareness certainly mucks things up in socio-economic systems which are
    >also real in some sense. I hear people putting forward the view that
    >time is a construct of our minds; does time flow?

    Take a look around and you will see that it does. Do you really
    arbitrarily choose not to be able to observe next weeks lottery
    numbers before you place your bet?

    We know that the models provided by physics are imperfect. Maybe some
    day someone will explain why time is different to space. Maybe not.
    But what we are able to percieve does not define reality - it only
    forms an imperfect model.

    The fact that perception is not perfect does not mean there isn't a
    defining reality to percieve. There must be something that ties all
    our perceptions together, though, or else why are they sufficiently
    compatible that we can interact at all.

    >This is a bit too meta-physical, but then much of modern physics is like
    >that. Since much of physics is done by counting events we are in the
    >position of the man who having jumped out of the top floor observes that
    >all's well after falling past the third floor as falling past floors
    >10,9,... etc didn't hurt. We cannot exclude exceptional events.

    I'm not excluding the exceptional. I'm also not excluding what I can
    see for myself just by opening my eyes. 

    -- 
Steve Horne
steve at ninereeds dot fsnet dot co dot uk
  • Next message: Todd Stephens: "Re: Newbie Questions: Swithing from Perl to Python"

    Relevant Pages

    • Sample of my SR model"s interpretation
      ... perceptual reality acts like a 3-D hyperplane screen, ... It is no wonder that perceptions made by such ... traveling twin makes his journey, ... The ship's front end is seen by a stationary observer to have ...
      (sci.physics.relativity)
    • =?iso-8859-1?q?An_Innovation_of_Schr=F6dingers_box?=
      ... a model a cat in a box with an vial with hydrogencyanide. ... The modern deus ex machina created the cat living in a superposition ... center of the box and an three dimensional observer tries to find its ... Take a relation between a book and its reader. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Many-Worlds Interpretation - Questions?
      ... there is a state of "reality" with a historical record of wave ... cutting the observer off from one part of the larger, superposition ... In the multiverse there ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: A basic principle of physics modeling vs reality
      ... > But 'observable world' implies an observer. ... Men are part of Nature, ... > part of reality, even if I recognize that any sharp distinction is not ... Your restriction on empiricism refering only to macro ...
      (sci.physics.relativity)
    • Re: Syncronized atomic clocks
      ... observer. ... General Relativity is obviously a dead end theory of reality because: ... It models a continuous reality, ... and remap time and space onto a linear, ...
      (sci.physics)