“But the “electrons” we see today, would still be computed as amplitude flows between simulated configuration”
- Eliezer, the argument being posted against you is that the MODEL could be wrong. Remember, it’s a mathematical model—it describes, it doesn’t define.
Remember, there are quite a few models of quantum physics that describe the behavior of quantum “particles”—and that presumes on the particles’ very existence. It is quite possible to invent a model which describes physics perfectly but which omits the existence of electrons, photons, and other quantum particles, as nothing more than artifacts of interaction between particle’s fields. (The math gets ugly in a way that is reminiscent of the models of universal motion which pushed a geocentric model, but the models can still function descriptively.)
There are currently a dozen mathematical models which accurately describe quantum physics—predictive behavior is nonexistent for a couple of them (generally the more obviously taoist-nonsense), but curiously correlative among the others.
Superdimensional models, such as those derived from Hilbert space, can be defined to both permit and to deny individual particles; it depends upon the assumptions you put in. You’re assuming special cases for “normal” dimensions; i/e, that the additional n to infinity dimensions don’t behave exactly the same way our usual four (three and a half) dimensions operate.
If you remove special behavior from the extra dimensions—permit particles to move on them, rather than have characteristics defined on them (phase space) - then you can derive an interference model which exactly parallels that which a configuration space will generate, without defeating individuality of particles in the process, similar in nature to multiverse theory. (Although you end up with some other curiousities as a result—i/e, wave behavior must be defined as rotation against an arbitrary pair of additional dimensions.)
In other words, your proof makes the assumption that the mathematical model IS the universe, rather than merely describing it. And remember that any finite set of data can be described by an infinite set of formulas; that is, we can never be certain that a mathematical model is “the one.” This is a mathematical—not a philosophical, as you imply—limitation.
(Or, in other words—the universe doesn’t have to be a lie for the sun to turn into chocolate cake—you’ll still have a finite data set, you can still write formulas which will describe the transformation behavior.)
“But the “electrons” we see today, would still be computed as amplitude flows between simulated configuration”
- Eliezer, the argument being posted against you is that the MODEL could be wrong. Remember, it’s a mathematical model—it describes, it doesn’t define.
Remember, there are quite a few models of quantum physics that describe the behavior of quantum “particles”—and that presumes on the particles’ very existence. It is quite possible to invent a model which describes physics perfectly but which omits the existence of electrons, photons, and other quantum particles, as nothing more than artifacts of interaction between particle’s fields. (The math gets ugly in a way that is reminiscent of the models of universal motion which pushed a geocentric model, but the models can still function descriptively.)
There are currently a dozen mathematical models which accurately describe quantum physics—predictive behavior is nonexistent for a couple of them (generally the more obviously taoist-nonsense), but curiously correlative among the others.
Superdimensional models, such as those derived from Hilbert space, can be defined to both permit and to deny individual particles; it depends upon the assumptions you put in. You’re assuming special cases for “normal” dimensions; i/e, that the additional n to infinity dimensions don’t behave exactly the same way our usual four (three and a half) dimensions operate.
If you remove special behavior from the extra dimensions—permit particles to move on them, rather than have characteristics defined on them (phase space) - then you can derive an interference model which exactly parallels that which a configuration space will generate, without defeating individuality of particles in the process, similar in nature to multiverse theory. (Although you end up with some other curiousities as a result—i/e, wave behavior must be defined as rotation against an arbitrary pair of additional dimensions.)
In other words, your proof makes the assumption that the mathematical model IS the universe, rather than merely describing it. And remember that any finite set of data can be described by an infinite set of formulas; that is, we can never be certain that a mathematical model is “the one.” This is a mathematical—not a philosophical, as you imply—limitation.
(Or, in other words—the universe doesn’t have to be a lie for the sun to turn into chocolate cake—you’ll still have a finite data set, you can still write formulas which will describe the transformation behavior.)