Perhaps it’s only information once it becomes an observable. Prior to becoming an observable, it’s governed by other processes that we do not observe. We approximate the behavior of the unobserved by utilizing probabilities. But what do probabilities measure? “which outcome?”, which is the observation itself. But if an outcome is guaranteed to eventually occur, could you start with the assumption of “this is an observable that will result in a precise value” as a starting point and work backwards? (rather like solving a maze from the end and working towards the beginning which is almost always easier)

Perhaps it’s only information once it becomes an observable.Prior to becoming an observable, it’s governed by other processes that we do not observe.We approximate the behavior of the unobserved by utilizing probabilities.But what do probabilities measure?”which outcome?”, which is the observation itself.But if an outcome is guaranteed to eventually occur, could you start with the assumption of “this is an observable that will result in a precise value” as a starting point and work backwards? (rather like solving a maze from the end and working towards the beginning which is almost always easier)
======
 But : How much are our minds independent of these systems?
—-
  An absolutely isolated system is a “black box”. But not even that. It would be nothing to us as observation is needed for us to be aware of its existence.So, we can instead focus on black box systems that produce minimum outputs or minimum inputs, as they’re easier to work with and hopefully the workings of the black box can be explained as elegantly as possible
======
  Black box actually refers to open systems though.“The field of system identification a uses statistical methods to build mathematical models of dynamical systems from measured data. System identification also includes the optimal design of experiments for efficiently generating informative data for fitting such models as well as model reduction. “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_identificationThis differs from the approach of mathematical quantum physics
======—-
If you trace the “family tree” of developments of these related fields, you can understand how they relate and differ from one another.https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Mathematical_formulation_of…is a history you know well, from Classical to various types of Quantum all the way to today with Everett’s many worlds (1957) as top contender now.Physics inherited “isolated systems” from Classical physics.BUT: “Black Box” comes from the development of engineered systems and theories of dynamical systems, such as cybernetics (1948) and as such were always open systems, with inputs and outputs.”In 1868 James Clerk Maxwell published a theoretical article on governors, one of the first to discuss and refine the principles of self-regulating devices.”So why did quantum mechanics studies not inherit Maxwell’s governors?Different paths.
=========
 Oh, I think Classical works which is part of why it’s still in common use in most fields.Good overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_physicsBut I think we (educationally) do a disservice by teaching Newton first. For many, that’s all they get and they look at quantum things as “woo”.
=====
 Going to roots, it was failure of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93Jeans_law at high frequencies which prompted Planck, then Einstein and the rest is history.But I wonder, “What if?”Is there an alternate route to work on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe that could have led us down a different route, perhaps involving dynamical systams to today? What would that look like?
======
 HOLD UP: I forgot about Bose! Boson…. oh… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose
=====
 _in an enclosure_“SN Bose’s work on particle statistics (c. 1922), which clarified the behaviour of photons (the particles of light in an enclosure) and opened the door to new ideas on statistics of Microsystems that obey the rules of quantum theory”
=======
  INTERESTINGLY (as in, ‘I just learned this now’), studying “isolated systems” carries forward strongly.Transitions via fitness distribution and not thermodynamics work in very large systems that are modeled “as if closed”.Bose gas + evolutionary/ecological systems. Harmonic oscillators._I_ personally think this does a disservice BUT, it’s pragmatic.https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein..
=====
  in a sense though, I can see the practicality of studying in an “system in a box” fashion.This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_canonical_ensembletruly is amazing. It’s not the whole story. But it is an amazing achievement.
======
  I _still_ think that even within the grand canonical ensemble, or especially – it needs its statistical methods replaced by dynamical systems or at least reformulated.Maybe that’s been done – I haven’t looked.But I think we could do better than Bose base models.
======
  Ooh, I think I found what I wanted to see. 2005.“Euclidean quantum fields obtained as solutions of stochastic partial pseudo differential equations driven by a Poisson white noise have paths given by locally integrable functions. This makes it possible to define a class of ultra-violet finite local interactions for these models (in any space-time dimension). “
=====
  ‘it’ being what I’m looking for – not saying what I’m looking for is ‘it’ it… just ‘my it’.
====
 That’s what I’m wanting, yeah. It’s hard though, as many of the methods (including statistics itself) is built-up upon Bose ideal gas.
=====
 I don’t know if this will help but I like swapping from theory to production and back again.This for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang%E2%80%93bang_control
=====
For disconnection, you need boundary conditions, interfacing with non-interaction, non-interaction, interfacing with non-interaction, and boundary conditions.
———
——————
 Anything. This description is simply how my mind sees interfacing.I look at paint on a wall, I see the paint layer, surrounded in front and back by interfacing on both sides one interfaces with the wall, the other with the air.Next to each interfacing, (now I’m generalizing), I see a “glue or glide” which can be comprised of anything from oil to glue to air or a mixture of two surfaces which can form its own properties.That layer interfaces with the interfacing layers, one air, one wall.Finally,, there’s air on one side, wall on the other.Generalized, I see any interfacing layers like that at any boundary.
======
 Ah!! It *is* similar to shearing (what I was thinking about). I searched for “shearing flow” and saw this image, read it, and yeah, this sounds like ‘the thing’ I visualize in my head.
=====
“You can play God,” Rice said. “The important finding is the overwhelming role of the lubrication forces and the anti-intuitive result that they create.”
=====
So, for example, you want non-interacting.TO me, the only way to have non-interaction, is to have a lubricant flow inbetween.It might be perfect and frictionless.But at some point you want a boundary.PRIOR to reaching that boundary, the lubricant and the boundary form another layer of interaction that is mixed and possibly complex.
======
 It can be sparse vs dense. But even with THAT, what makes up the metric distances between sparse points?
======
 Oh but even with “Interacting without “mixing”” I think you still will have two mixing zones.
=====
If so, then what distinguishes x and y?
====
I can accept substitution.
=====
  It may appear to be a semantic distinction but the concept of “identicalness” has always been troublesome to me. Two entities have some uniqueness. One may effectively and completely substitute for the other and their uniqueness can be effectively ignored for the function to proceed and be effectively identical, but not in actuality.For example, a function that operates on itself creates an indexable self upon completion of the self-modifying loop. It may destroy the original and substitute itself for the original and effectively put itself forward as the original in nearly every practical fashion, but if there is knowledge of its history, its nature as a substitution remains.
=====
 I think this is particularly important in programming for error correction methods to be included.Breakpoints, checkpoints, parity checks, etc.
=====
  “Intrinsic” is a characteristic I consider difficult.I can however accept an ontological samemess as in “This can possibly be included in a “set of””.For successful industry (machinery), precision substitution is necessary for proper functioning of the machine’s stated purpose, whether that machine is a screw, a printer, a computer, whatever it may be.
======
 In Lambda Calculus, you have anonymous functions that can recurse. I’m no pro at this – lambda calculus is this amazing thing to me that I’m always learning more about – but there is a way to use recursion to form supercombinators which performs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_lifting – a meta process useful for bootstrapping and is great for security.
=====
  “Bose solved the problem by postulating that Planck’s quanta were real physical particles — what we now call photons, not just a mathematical fiction. They modified statistical mechanics in the style of Boltzmann to an ensemble of photons. “In short: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gasI always found this problematic.
======
and of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_gas
without which we couldn’t talk about star stuff so easily.
======
 Still, if you constrain a dimension, you can do amazing things.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensional_electron_gas
=====
 What bothers me with Information theory – which I absolutely love mind you – is this:Information gas.

That is what we’re working with.

====
 We need a better metaphor for processes.
=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one + = 3

Leave a Reply