mj
@malthusjohn.bsky.social
Philosophy & History of Science, Complex Systems, Knowledge Management. Networks, Harmony, Co-Evolution, Autopoiesis, Neurodiversity ♾️ AuDhD.
Ecology, Digital Revolution ~> Information Paradigm.
Theorist, .. wait!- come back, there's more..
🕺🎶🍞📸🤡
Ecology, Digital Revolution ~> Information Paradigm.
Theorist, .. wait!- come back, there's more..
🕺🎶🍞📸🤡
Unfortunately, people rarely say which they're talking about when kicking these sort of ideas around.
I suspect most are referring to 'old qm' or the basic copenhagen interpretation's version.
I suspect most are referring to 'old qm' or the basic copenhagen interpretation's version.
November 25, 2025 at 11:40 PM
Unfortunately, people rarely say which they're talking about when kicking these sort of ideas around.
I suspect most are referring to 'old qm' or the basic copenhagen interpretation's version.
I suspect most are referring to 'old qm' or the basic copenhagen interpretation's version.
Is it fair to say that's in the realm of the many interpretations of it?
Also, are there examples of it doing the opposite? (incorporating SR principles pre-QFT)
Also, are there examples of it doing the opposite? (incorporating SR principles pre-QFT)
November 25, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Is it fair to say that's in the realm of the many interpretations of it?
Also, are there examples of it doing the opposite? (incorporating SR principles pre-QFT)
Also, are there examples of it doing the opposite? (incorporating SR principles pre-QFT)
The ability to manipulate & monopolize information means there is undue control on the outcome by selecting a supportive narrative (language + simplified reasoning) & obscuring the complexity and/or contradictory (incl. unethical) elements when communicating these models.
Along these lines:
Along these lines:
November 25, 2025 at 2:07 PM
The ability to manipulate & monopolize information means there is undue control on the outcome by selecting a supportive narrative (language + simplified reasoning) & obscuring the complexity and/or contradictory (incl. unethical) elements when communicating these models.
Along these lines:
Along these lines:
I just mean mono-whatever. I posit the simple qualitative & quantitative difference between 1 & 2 (n>1), ie. single/plural, one/many, individual/collective, etc. is a fundamental part of the story. So in this case, as in a corporation, the person doing the statistics solely decides the criteria.
November 25, 2025 at 2:07 PM
I just mean mono-whatever. I posit the simple qualitative & quantitative difference between 1 & 2 (n>1), ie. single/plural, one/many, individual/collective, etc. is a fundamental part of the story. So in this case, as in a corporation, the person doing the statistics solely decides the criteria.
Yeah, I've been reading some of your work when you share posts here. There's a lot of overlap in what I'm doing, so hopefully there will be some interesting exchanges in our future.
One of the basic rules of math that statistics uses is the self-similarity (mono-x) of the objects being calculated.
One of the basic rules of math that statistics uses is the self-similarity (mono-x) of the objects being calculated.
November 25, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Yeah, I've been reading some of your work when you share posts here. There's a lot of overlap in what I'm doing, so hopefully there will be some interesting exchanges in our future.
One of the basic rules of math that statistics uses is the self-similarity (mono-x) of the objects being calculated.
One of the basic rules of math that statistics uses is the self-similarity (mono-x) of the objects being calculated.
The difference is that unlike monopolized surplus into the hands of the few, information will be easily digitally shared with all members of society.
The narrow #efficiency of monopoly & over-specialization must be reduced to achieve more #resiliency & sustainable systems.
The narrow #efficiency of monopoly & over-specialization must be reduced to achieve more #resiliency & sustainable systems.
November 25, 2025 at 12:39 PM
The difference is that unlike monopolized surplus into the hands of the few, information will be easily digitally shared with all members of society.
The narrow #efficiency of monopoly & over-specialization must be reduced to achieve more #resiliency & sustainable systems.
The narrow #efficiency of monopoly & over-specialization must be reduced to achieve more #resiliency & sustainable systems.
In the #Information_Paradigm, interactional experts will become more important, which even by itself will lessen the importance of specialist experts in a similar way that capitalist factory owners abstracted away craftsman experts in favor of middleman-managers to maximize their profit seeking.
November 25, 2025 at 12:39 PM
In the #Information_Paradigm, interactional experts will become more important, which even by itself will lessen the importance of specialist experts in a similar way that capitalist factory owners abstracted away craftsman experts in favor of middleman-managers to maximize their profit seeking.
It must have for some, or that question wouldn't keep getting asked.
It's such a philosophical question...
It's such a philosophical question...
November 25, 2025 at 12:18 PM
It must have for some, or that question wouldn't keep getting asked.
It's such a philosophical question...
It's such a philosophical question...
This paper is a good attempt at laying out the conditions & contexts where we might find adequate definitions from which to build consensus around.
To Be More Concrete About Abstracta and Concreta,
TOYOSHIMA & NIKI, 2024
www.utwente.nl/en/eemcs/foi...
To Be More Concrete About Abstracta and Concreta,
TOYOSHIMA & NIKI, 2024
www.utwente.nl/en/eemcs/foi...
www.utwente.nl
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
This paper is a good attempt at laying out the conditions & contexts where we might find adequate definitions from which to build consensus around.
To Be More Concrete About Abstracta and Concreta,
TOYOSHIMA & NIKI, 2024
www.utwente.nl/en/eemcs/foi...
To Be More Concrete About Abstracta and Concreta,
TOYOSHIMA & NIKI, 2024
www.utwente.nl/en/eemcs/foi...
One thing that's clear: reality is too complex to begin w/such a simple binary. We'll need more than one kind of existence and event; they're not all the same in a way that allows a single, simple definition.
The Intro from this SEP is a concise summary of this:
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal...
The Intro from this SEP is a concise summary of this:
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal...
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
One thing that's clear: reality is too complex to begin w/such a simple binary. We'll need more than one kind of existence and event; they're not all the same in a way that allows a single, simple definition.
The Intro from this SEP is a concise summary of this:
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal...
The Intro from this SEP is a concise summary of this:
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal...
That is, of course, a very convenient simplifying assumption, and we're fine w/it in general, but it does invoke or at least invite misunderstandings such as you've mentioned.
These contentions go back 1000s of years. Abstracta vs Concreta, Universals vs Particulars, etc.
These contentions go back 1000s of years. Abstracta vs Concreta, Universals vs Particulars, etc.
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
That is, of course, a very convenient simplifying assumption, and we're fine w/it in general, but it does invoke or at least invite misunderstandings such as you've mentioned.
These contentions go back 1000s of years. Abstracta vs Concreta, Universals vs Particulars, etc.
These contentions go back 1000s of years. Abstracta vs Concreta, Universals vs Particulars, etc.
It's true the subjects/objects at the party already existed, but when they came together they create a new object, which also terminates when they leave.
This is also how most science treats experiments & time: it's a duration that starts w/zero (not a universal running time, like in geology).
This is also how most science treats experiments & time: it's a duration that starts w/zero (not a universal running time, like in geology).
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
It's true the subjects/objects at the party already existed, but when they came together they create a new object, which also terminates when they leave.
This is also how most science treats experiments & time: it's a duration that starts w/zero (not a universal running time, like in geology).
This is also how most science treats experiments & time: it's a duration that starts w/zero (not a universal running time, like in geology).
Have you considered describing an event as existing only for the duration it happened?
Bob had a party. > before it started, abstract. When it's going on, it becomes 'place-like' (people are at). 2 people meet & later marry. So how do we say "no party ever existed"?
Bob had a party. > before it started, abstract. When it's going on, it becomes 'place-like' (people are at). 2 people meet & later marry. So how do we say "no party ever existed"?
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Have you considered describing an event as existing only for the duration it happened?
Bob had a party. > before it started, abstract. When it's going on, it becomes 'place-like' (people are at). 2 people meet & later marry. So how do we say "no party ever existed"?
Bob had a party. > before it started, abstract. When it's going on, it becomes 'place-like' (people are at). 2 people meet & later marry. So how do we say "no party ever existed"?
This is why I brought in the nonlinearity: to create is another verb that must be included, and is an event in itself. Any physical consequences of an event now exist as well, showing the order of action.
I prefer an autopoietic version that has all the necessary parts included from the start.
I prefer an autopoietic version that has all the necessary parts included from the start.
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
This is why I brought in the nonlinearity: to create is another verb that must be included, and is an event in itself. Any physical consequences of an event now exist as well, showing the order of action.
I prefer an autopoietic version that has all the necessary parts included from the start.
I prefer an autopoietic version that has all the necessary parts included from the start.
So I guess while the spacetime part of this is clear, I don't see how it can be a fundamental starting point.
In order for something to exist, you either just start w/that assumption, or more realistically, you also explain how the thing came to be, which required an event, and another source.
In order for something to exist, you either just start w/that assumption, or more realistically, you also explain how the thing came to be, which required an event, and another source.
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
So I guess while the spacetime part of this is clear, I don't see how it can be a fundamental starting point.
In order for something to exist, you either just start w/that assumption, or more realistically, you also explain how the thing came to be, which required an event, and another source.
In order for something to exist, you either just start w/that assumption, or more realistically, you also explain how the thing came to be, which required an event, and another source.
No contention regarding categorical difference of these two (like many other) verbs, which means they have special treatment, according to context.
A complete sentence need 2 more elements, to convey meaning in the normal sense. A single thing can exist, but an event requires more than one object.
A complete sentence need 2 more elements, to convey meaning in the normal sense. A single thing can exist, but an event requires more than one object.
November 24, 2025 at 12:44 PM
No contention regarding categorical difference of these two (like many other) verbs, which means they have special treatment, according to context.
A complete sentence need 2 more elements, to convey meaning in the normal sense. A single thing can exist, but an event requires more than one object.
A complete sentence need 2 more elements, to convey meaning in the normal sense. A single thing can exist, but an event requires more than one object.
The question of whether time is continuous or quantized is moot. We can never measure anything other than an (pre-determined by existing objects) interval of it. Only by reifying an "infinitely divisible" # line did we conceive of continuous as being an option.
♾️-ly divisible objects do not exist.
♾️-ly divisible objects do not exist.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
The question of whether time is continuous or quantized is moot. We can never measure anything other than an (pre-determined by existing objects) interval of it. Only by reifying an "infinitely divisible" # line did we conceive of continuous as being an option.
♾️-ly divisible objects do not exist.
♾️-ly divisible objects do not exist.
Internal code, structure, etc. must pre-set for the way their code will live on. Some proliferate in space, growing in size or quantity, some in time, sacrificing change in its reproduction for immortality.
These edges/durations/intervals help define what exists. I think a fractal view helps here.
These edges/durations/intervals help define what exists. I think a fractal view helps here.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
Internal code, structure, etc. must pre-set for the way their code will live on. Some proliferate in space, growing in size or quantity, some in time, sacrificing change in its reproduction for immortality.
These edges/durations/intervals help define what exists. I think a fractal view helps here.
These edges/durations/intervals help define what exists. I think a fractal view helps here.
So exist, not-exist, & creation are rolled into 1 fundamental concept. Why things exist in the 1st place is an important part.
Everything has a duration of existence, including "eternal" fundamental particles. Successful manifestations have retro-logic that some misinterpret as intelligent design.
Everything has a duration of existence, including "eternal" fundamental particles. Successful manifestations have retro-logic that some misinterpret as intelligent design.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
So exist, not-exist, & creation are rolled into 1 fundamental concept. Why things exist in the 1st place is an important part.
Everything has a duration of existence, including "eternal" fundamental particles. Successful manifestations have retro-logic that some misinterpret as intelligent design.
Everything has a duration of existence, including "eternal" fundamental particles. Successful manifestations have retro-logic that some misinterpret as intelligent design.
This is often easier to depict in network theory tools, where the edges between nodes are where the interactions are, and new info generated.
Another key element is evolution, where because of relations, things change. A new species has evolved from a past state & a new 1 created.
Another key element is evolution, where because of relations, things change. A new species has evolved from a past state & a new 1 created.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
This is often easier to depict in network theory tools, where the edges between nodes are where the interactions are, and new info generated.
Another key element is evolution, where because of relations, things change. A new species has evolved from a past state & a new 1 created.
Another key element is evolution, where because of relations, things change. A new species has evolved from a past state & a new 1 created.
But like absolute time's involvement in relativity, w/o the symmetrical units of the number line, we can't begin to count Time or time. Whatever value we assign to the duration, once we instantiate it, it manifests as additional information.
I hold a relational, nonlinear, holistic type of view.
I hold a relational, nonlinear, holistic type of view.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
But like absolute time's involvement in relativity, w/o the symmetrical units of the number line, we can't begin to count Time or time. Whatever value we assign to the duration, once we instantiate it, it manifests as additional information.
I hold a relational, nonlinear, holistic type of view.
I hold a relational, nonlinear, holistic type of view.
I'll start w/ the last. An interval is type of variable unit we use to measure time, so it's between the 2 events, objects, states, etc. Time is famously not monolithically defined. Universal time can be between the beginning & end of all existence. Local time can be any interval smaller.
November 23, 2025 at 6:47 PM
I'll start w/ the last. An interval is type of variable unit we use to measure time, so it's between the 2 events, objects, states, etc. Time is famously not monolithically defined. Universal time can be between the beginning & end of all existence. Local time can be any interval smaller.
Events are definitely the harder area to define, as we experience & remember them as part of our reality. Measuring & reporting the results are key elements of science. Time itself is an event, measured between 2 physical objects.
SUM: I think clearer definitions are possible, but not more concise.
SUM: I think clearer definitions are possible, but not more concise.
November 23, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Events are definitely the harder area to define, as we experience & remember them as part of our reality. Measuring & reporting the results are key elements of science. Time itself is an event, measured between 2 physical objects.
SUM: I think clearer definitions are possible, but not more concise.
SUM: I think clearer definitions are possible, but not more concise.
I do agree 100% that space & time are not physical, and that reification drives as many misunderstanding in science as it helps.
Math in general shares this mental habit: 5 is abstract, 5 pears are physical. We assign units to abstractions just as easily as objects as a way to 'fill in the gaps.'
Math in general shares this mental habit: 5 is abstract, 5 pears are physical. We assign units to abstractions just as easily as objects as a way to 'fill in the gaps.'
November 23, 2025 at 1:43 PM
I do agree 100% that space & time are not physical, and that reification drives as many misunderstanding in science as it helps.
Math in general shares this mental habit: 5 is abstract, 5 pears are physical. We assign units to abstractions just as easily as objects as a way to 'fill in the gaps.'
Math in general shares this mental habit: 5 is abstract, 5 pears are physical. We assign units to abstractions just as easily as objects as a way to 'fill in the gaps.'