Dave asked how valid it was to claim "every experiencer's behavior will be
grounded on the interpretations, not the 'raw data'."
I think the answer has to be: Centuries of effort to try to nail that down
how we "interpret" "raw data" can only be resolved by recognizing that
whatever we mean by "ra
I don’t have any time to pursue it, but I bet there would be something
interesting if you look at the various groups corresponding to the
symmetries, and their relations (direct product??). Is something like
that involved in the “elsewhere” where this popped up?
--Barry
On 12 Jan 2019, at 13
Date: 1/12/19 20:42 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] models, reality, etc.
Entanglement is probabilistic: Look for a dot at some location, if you see
one, then there's a probability of seeing another dot at another location, a
A person who works in data compression, randomness, or statistical mechanics
might try to frame a description that is as operational and contains as much
structural resolution in it as possible, by drawing language from the sectors
of behavior and observation that are as robustly disambiguatable
Given an "experiencer":
- what is directly "experienced" is apparently randomly moving dots.
- what is "interpreted" from that experience (a kind of meta-experience)
are 'triangles', 'squares', 'stars', and 'prisms'.
- every experiencer's behavior will be grounded on the interpretations,
not
Entanglement is probabilistic: Look for a dot at some location, if you see
one, then there's a probability of seeing another dot at another location, and
a different probability if you don't.
On 1/12/19, 11:53 AM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West"
wrote:
This popped up elsewhere an
Wow. It's all those things at once!
REALLY?!
What a great example!
Let me try and put it into words. The nominalist would like to say “There is
no real pattern there, it just depends on how you want to look at it.” The
realist would like to say, “Nonsense. The patterns appea
