John J. Kineman wrote:
> SHORT reply by John Kineman to >Norm (who is responding to >>Don):
>
> >>
> >> We also can show that the reason these aspects of microscopic theory are so
> >> compatible with macroscopic theory is that they can be derived from
> > macroscopic
> >> theory (see my previous comments on Bose-Einstein statistics and Peusner's
> >> network
> >> thermodynamics).
> >
> >I'm a little confused here. If we can derive micro and macro theory
> >from each other, isn't this a model of a simple system?
>
> I'm also confused by this. It has been my belief that quantum was
> absolutely NOT derivable from classical physics, but that quantum theory
> can be shown to result in classical equations when there are high quantum
> numbers (many interactions). So I am very surprised if one can DERIVE QM
> from classical. It is certainly INFERRED from classical observations, i.e.,
> the observation that classical explanations are paradoxical at the quantum
> level causes one to infer a larger umbrella, but it was my understanding
> that one could not derive the larger case from the more specific.
yes..that's the dogma....BUT! it was clear to Einstein and Peusner actually did
some of it. It has nothing to do with the usual "wavelength of a baseball"
argument either. One example is the derivation of Bose-Einstein statistics. I
don't think he ever published this, but I have notes on it for a book we were
writing.
> However,
> I have not kept current on this topic, so would like to be enlightened. Is
> there a good summary of the status of things on this topic somewhere?
>
> >> But to say that a formalism (quantum mechanics) is real is a different
> matter.
> >
> >I agree. In my words, I would say the formal model (quantum mechanics)
> >and the natural quantum world are of different logical types.
> >
> >But changing the the subject to our models of the relationships between
> >the macro and the micro natural systems, the model that makes the most
> >sense to me is one that says that the macro natural system differs from
> >and yet is the same as the micro natural system.
> >
> >So even though the natural system does not make these distinctions, our
> >complex modeling system must say that the micro realm differs from and
> >is the same as the macro realm at the same time. In other words, this
> >is how we must look at them to understand them in terms that we are
> >forced to use because of the ways our minds work, how we communicate
> >with each other and how our visual systems divide up our virtual world.
> >
>
> I think this is equivalent to the view that there is one "reality" but our
> theories can only describe limited aspects of it. The presumption that any
> elements of theory describe "reality" is a good goal, because it leads to
> closer and closer approximations and integration of theories.
>
> > I
> >think we lso have the capicity to create models that can simulate and
> >understand the whole natural system as it is.
> >
>
> If by this you mean objective/empirical models that can duplicate the
> behavior of a natural system, I disagree on epistemological grounds. An
> objective model can't fully comprehend the system it models, unless its
> elements operate on the same principles, in which case it is no longer
> solely empirical.
The trivial model is the thing itself! it is all encompassing. Chua said: "A
model is a comprimise between simplicity and reality"
>
>
> >We cannot articulate these kinds of understandings because our language
> >is out of sync with them.
>
> being necessarily based on separated concepts.
>
> >Yet I am still convinced that we have some
> >rather ill defined and vastly under utilized understanding capabilities.
> >
> >As John suggests, they probably use some of the same strange quantum
> >features we have so much trouble making good models of. But the key to
> >me seems more likely to be in the notion of how these physical quantum
> >effects interact with the non physical data. The best I can do so far
> >is to say that the data or information is the same as these and other
> >macro physical effects and yet seems to differ from it at the same
> >time. The main reason these difference are so confusing is that they
> >are all non physical.
> >
>
> Even though I promised to be quiet about this for a while (so I can get
> some other work done), I couldn't help thinking about it more. Here's
> another approach I came up with from asking "what is thinking?"
>
> As you know, the idea of "physical" vs. "non-physical" data bothers me
> because it seems that both are necessary to have data. Is it possible to
> equate data with "awareness of physical states." In this way, we can
> hypothesize that quantum events are themselves data if they are in fact
> created by observation (self or interaction). In the apparently
> "non-physical" thoughts we experience, is it possible that we are creating
> similar "data" when we think? Once a state has been determined, it is
> "physical." Before then it is undefined "potential." Our thoughts, though
> they seem purely non-physical, thus require the recording of these events.
> The aware part of thinking is where we directly experience the creative
> event. If, as I propose, experience is always a sense of the whole, our
> thoughts are perhaps focusing on different levels or groupings of states
> (data) and being "aware" of their wholism. The apparent fragmentation of
> this awareness (I can be aware of any range of things from a silly highly
> specialized problem to the cosmic purpose of humanity or beyond) depends on
> the collection of physical data we are capable or choose to be aware of.
> Only if we could be simultaneously aware of all the data in the physical
> world would our thoughts correspond to the ultimate conscioiusness. Yet in
> direct experience, every experience of wholism is a reminder of this state.
> Hence we seek beauty, art, understanding, power, meaning, etc. We become
> inspired by the ultimate and try to apply it to the mundane (i.e., what we
> are aware OF, vs. the experience of awareness). This view preserves my
> objection to "data" in the undefined quantum goo and allows for a potential
> equivalence between the presumed "non-physical" quantum realm and the
> apparent "non-physical" thought realm. The "information" is pure awareness,
> but when combined with a data field, it becomes awareness OF something --
> i.e., more limited but still reminiscent of reality.
>
> >> > so they
> >> > are clearly connected. Is macro derivable from quantum? Yes, but with an
> >> > uncertainty relationship that is quantifiable. Hence the derivation is
> not
> >> > deterministic but probabalistic and context dependent.
> >>
> >> and quantum is derivable from macroscopic...Einstein knew this...as Peusner
> > has
> >> shown. This is also an idea Priggogine develops.
> >
> >I would say that the quantum and macro differences are also qualitative.
> >But that is perhaps just another way of saying that these differences
> >are probabilistic and context dependent. Again, I am a bit confused
> >about the relational aspects of the modeling derivations. If the models
> >are derivable perhaps the natural system is not a complex system. Yet
> >I think that is. So perhaps when I say that are the samd and differ at
> >the same time, this is just another way of saying that the models are at
> >once both derivable and non derivable. So what we may have is a fuzzy
> >notion of derivability instead of an either or test of derivability. ?
> >This is a question for you Don.
> >
>
> I do not believe QM is derivable from classical laws. Perhpas Don could
> clarify his meaning here.
One example mentioned abov...Bose - Einstein statistics from the convection
diffusion equation. Another.....the log P form for microstates which obey
Kirchhoff's voltage law and its many exte3nsions in the macro world. These are
enough to raise some interesting "chicken and egg" questions!
>
>
> >
> >> > Bohr sought a 1:1
> >> > "correspondance" between classical and quantum theory but had to
> settle for
> >> > the derivability of classical from quantum, i.e., "consistency." If
> >> > classical theory were not derivable from quantum, quantum would have been
> >> > rejected. A big debate exists over the ontology of quantum indeterminism,
> >> > not whether it exists or the fact that it is quantifiable. The debate is
> >> > over whether uncertainty is an epistemological issue (our ability to know
> >> > what causes quantum events) or a fundamental uncertainty in the structure
> >> > of the 4-dimensional universe. The difference is metaphysical, but the
> >> > debate can delay acceptance of quantum uncertainty as an operational fact
> >> > in other disciplines.
> >> >
> >> > My suggestion about data is to accept the separation between subject and
> >> > object in the macro world (which we earlier agreed was relative to ones
> >> > perspective) and that data are what connects subject and object (again in
> >> > the macro world).
> >>
> >> We have already shown where this division is artificial and destructive.
> It
> >> needs
> >> to be severely reconstructed.
> >
> >I agree Don. I follow and agree with John up to the subject/object
> >division. In fact, I think this division is a major contributor to what
> >I call our human blind spot.
> >
>
> Well, I'd like to agree too but want to be clear about what we're agreeing
> to. Perhaps I can modify my statement (if it wasn't clear originally) to
> say that I see the subject/object dualism as a part of the problem of
> perspective, sensory data, and theory, not a quality of nature itself. I
> agree that nature is whole, but our view (including but not limited to
> science) is what is fragmented. This seems compatible with the idea of a
> "blind spot," or in Biblical reference "seeing through a glass darkly." I
> don't see how anyone can deny the subject/object division in theory and
> models - that seems to be the streight-jacket we are stuck with, which is
> why I say the model can't duplicate reality. Does anyone know of a model
> that does not make this distinction or a view that says one is even
> possible?? The reason I labeled the distinction as between micro and macro
> is because we were discussing data, which again I think must involve
> perception, hence the subject/object "blind spot."
>
> >>
> >> yes. and we only have access to these things through measurement if we
> hold to
> >> traditional science......this is why it is so important to redefine
> knowledge
> > in
> >> the scientific context. The post positivists, constructivists, and
> others did
> >> this long ago.
> >
> >Don, in your view are we adding anything new and better what scientific
> >knowledge is? I guess I ask this because there seem to be so many
> >scientists who insist on sticking to the traditional interpretation. Do
> >you see things as changing with all deliberate speed?
> >
> >
>
> I'd like to comment on this. I think I agree with Don, but the statement is
> vague about what the redefinition was, and it is not as though the matter
> is settled once and for all. As you saw, I am somewhat critical of a purly
> instrumentalist result of that redefinition, because in ecology and
> evolution it tends to be used as an excuse to not embrace the full
> implications of uncertainty. If, on the other hand, the implications of
> uncertainty were accounted for in these fields, I think it would indeed
> lead to recognizing something new in scientific knowledge -- the direct
> experience of organisms, including ourselves, and the idea of experience
> itself as a fundamental part of nature. On the methodological side, I
> believe there are things we can learn about nature (and have learned) from
> a careful and rigorous practice of inner experiential awareness (as in
> Easern meditation, Zen, etc.), and that, again with caution and care, some
> of this knowledge can be applied to other species and other aspects of
> reality in addition to human experience. That would seem to be a major
> change in science. It is a change that scientific and religious
> traditionalists fight vehemently for very good historical reasons, but the
> time may have come for that to change. The question, I think, is if we can
> do a better job of combining these two sources of knowledge in the future.
> I see the need for this cited often, but less said on how to accomplish it.
>
sorry nif I seem vague..some of this was referenced on our page....see the
constructivism bibliography....@ http://views.vcu.edu/complex/
> -----------------------------------------------
> John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
> National Geophysical Data Center
> 325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
> Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
> (303) 497-6900 (phone)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
> jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
regards, Don