Ricardo,
It seems to me that this line of reasoning follows closely to the Bohm view
of "implicate order" although I am no expert on Bohm! I do know that the
"particles existing in space" view is what the discovery of quantum
phenomena has shattered. The physicists are groping for a better idea too.
The particulate view is Newtonian, not quantum, is it not? So the idea now
is that there is some kind of quantum "soup" that is not particulate, but
"potential," and interaction with that evokes what behaves to the one
interacting with it as a particle. Hence the Newtonian particle behavior
CAN be said to be a result of our "model" or "illusion" or "observation" or
"interaction" BUT at the same time, we have to say it is, or becomes,
"real" in relation to the "reality" of the one interacting (i.e, same thing
as saying the one asking the questions) -- with a very strong analogy to
model building. Do you see why I said we can't completely separate the idea
of "reality" from the idea of "model?"
I'm not sure what cellular automata means in this context, but could it be
analogous to this quantum soup, which I think is taken quite seriously? It
is also interesting to contemplate the "particle in space" analogy from the
cosmological perspective, where it has suffered a similar fate. Previous
ideas of objects expanding THROUGH space (Hubble expansion), as if objects
were somehow independent of the space they exist in, are definitely
"five-minutes ago" (sorry, that's California slang for "out of style").
Instead, it is the geometry of space that is expanding, and celestial
objects are simply part of that geometry. So at both the cosmological and
quantum levels, space can no longer be seen as existing independently of
the things in it. Similar to Rosen's relational view?
At 06:15 PM 8/14/98 -0300, you wrote:
>Dear friends,
>
>Maybe I am kicking the bucket here. What you are going to read (if you
>dare)
>is a highly speculative idea that came to my mind just when reading last
>message
>from John about quantum mechanics, Penrose and the complexity of Rosen.
>Continue by your own risk ... and don't say I didn't advised you ...
>Well, let's go. Most of the theories in physics try to see the world as
>a great
>empty space, populated by entities that we call particles. Those
>particles
>interact to each other, creating the world we live on. Most research in
>modern physics is directed to the understanding of such particles. One
>of
>the most controverse theories trying to explain particles is Quantum
>Mechanics.
>But, if you notice, this conception of the world is intrinsecally
>reductionistic.
>We reduce matter to atoms, atoms to quarks, and (maybe) quarks to
>superstrings.
>WHAT IF the world is not an empty space populated by particles, but a
>giant "cellular automata", where each point of the space is able to be
>in
>a state (among e.g. an infinite number of possible states, only to be
>generic),
>and the value of a state depends on its own value in previous instants
>of
>time and the value of its neighbour states in previous instants of time.
>Not
>exactly like a cellular automata, but something as a continuous cellular
>
>automata. And the laws governing this big continous cellular automata
>would be such that it allows for the creation of stable things as
>particles
>that move within this space and eventually chock to each other and
>perform
>something that would be chemical reactions, and so and so and so. Then,
>particles would not be really particles, but only illusions of our
>perception,
>just as we can see happening in standard cellular automata.
>IF this scenario could be posed, then a Holistic view of the world would
>be
>in terms of such cellular automata laws, instead the illusion of
>particles
>interacting that our perception gives us. And it would also explain
>complexity, as we are biding our tokens in the wrong description of the
>world. Properties of matter are a CONSEQUENCE of the basic laws
>governing
>this cellular automata, and not laws by themselves. This would explain
>why
>the world is complex, not mechanistic. And it would also explain why the
>world
>is not governed by mechanistic laws, because this mechanism is only an
>illusion
>given by the cellular automata behavior.
>Other consequences not so desirable from this line of thought is the
>return of
>the idea of "ether", that science have banished from its repertoire of
>models
>from a long time.
>Do you have any comments on this ??, ... , or it is just a delirium of a
>friday's
>evening ?
>--
> //\\\
> (o o)
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO--(_)--OOo-=-=-+
> \ Prof. Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin /
> / Intelligent Systems Development Group \
> \ DCA - FEEC - UNICAMP | INTERNET /
> / Caixa Postal 6101 | gudwin@dca.fee.unicamp.br \
> \ 13081-970 Campinas, SP | gudwin@fee.unicamp.br /
> / BRAZIL | gudwin@correionet.com.br \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
> \ URL: http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/ /
> / Telephones: +55 (19) 788-3819 DCA/Unicamp (University) \
> \ +55 (19) 254-0184 Residencia (Home) /
> / FAX: +55 (19) 289-1395 \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
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)