A Note on Science: Surrealism of Quanta.[UPDATED]


140604105519-large2The Quantum Mechanics (QM) is established branch of physics with about 100 years of history behind it and countless technological implementations. I want to state clearly at the beginning of this post that I am aware and appreciate enormous contribution of QM as well as Solid State Physics to development of truly innovative discrete (digital) technologies in optics (laser, LED, photo voltaic cells, etc.) and electronics (superconductivity, semiconductor components etc.).

I do not intend here to question efficacy of the theory of Quanta but rather aim to question narratives disseminated widely in media, academia, and in many scientific circuits, supposedly explaining foundations of the Quantum theory as closely related to reality of universe. I will attempt to address some more controversial, often characterized as surreal, aspects of theory of QM in context of intelligibility debate continuing on this blog.

The aim of the post is specifically to dispel some of more bizarre, metaphysical claims about supposed nature of reality, claims, some good willed, seemingly learned individuals with advanced degrees, make and promote (mostly) in the media apparently to educate and attract new generations to careers in scientific fields. I am afraid that the result, of such noble but misguided efforts of stretching (or breaking) the truth about science and replacing it by phantom mirages of cinematic shock and awe enhanced by ecstatic narratives, will likely be opposite than intended. Especially bothersome is persistent interpretation of Quantum theory as directly describing true existing reality of microcosm and from that inference of peculiar pseudo-scientific quasi-religious conclusions resembling revelations of some outcrop of Hindu philosophy.

No proof of reality of Quantum theory exists to date. Perhaps because QM theory was conceived by human mind relying on extremely scarce and hard to interpret data, often obtained through purely abstract conceptualization of events defying sense-perception, in contrast to other classical theories of physics that were much more data driven. Quantum theory is strict mathematical theory applying certain unusual concepts that challenge common comprehension only because they are purely mathematical and not adopted from our common sense perceptions.

One of those purely mathematical concepts, that may sound familiar but in fact is extremely exotic, is a concept of (elementary or not) particle. The single micro-particle, a mathematical object, according to QM suppose to have bizarre basic properties, like mass, charge, energy, translational momentum and angular momentum, spin etc., and other magnetic properties. All those may be sounding deceivably familiar but are far from it. In this context no wonder why even after many decades of theoretical development, QM theory is unsure about mathematical objects corresponding to physical observables that could be tested against experiment. In other words quantum scientists are unsure what physical quantities they actually measure in experiment.

In fact none of micro-particles such as electron, proton, photon, neutron not to mention zoo of more exotic animals (quarks, neutrinos, tau, muon etc.) were ever directly observed and all are more or less products of unintelligible narratives, figments of scientific imagination. Their mass, charge and size are all inferred supposedly from experiments dealing with trillions of such “particles” measured not as individual particles but as mass densities, charge densities, energy densities, mass fluxes (fluid flows), charge fluxes (currents), energy fluxes* (heat flows) etc., all creations of mathematical field theory which QM adopted.

Another curious assumption, borrowed from classical statistical mechanics, is that all particles are indistinguishable from each other. This assumption has important consequences. First, since individual particle is undistinguishable from one another, we cannot say anything about individual particle. We cannot observe it nor even conclude about its existence because we cannot distinguish for example this electron from that electron. There is no continuity of identity since there is no identity. Second, dealing with trillions of such particles at a time, we cannot uniquely distinguish single particle by its characteristics such as energy, momentum, charge, etc. since their characteristics are distributed according to specific distribution functions postulated in theory of Quanta.

Hence, we cannot say anything about single particle belonging to a set of particles but only about large sub-sets of particles. The fact is that only large subsets of particles (actually fluxes) can be measured with adequate reliability and accuracy and in the process, only properties of sets of particles, and not properties of individual particle, can be derived. This alone renders all so-called experimental proofs of existence of individual micro particles moot point since no proof has never been provided nor could ever be provided due to fundamental assumptions of QM itself that precludes such possibility.

Some Q&A may be helpful in grasping more unusual concepts of QM in context of its intelligibility.

  1. You say micro-particles do not exist. What about some who say they saw electrons or protons or molecules!

We could not “see” micro-particles even if they existed. Do the math. We humans, see only in narrow optical spectrum, and as deep as we can theoretically see into microcosm, with assistance, is to about 100,000 angstrom (A) resolution, an order of 0.01 mm (1A =10-10m) and somewhat better with best optical microscopes while supposed “size” of typical molecule is of order of fraction of  A and supposed “size” of electron is orders of magnitude smaller than that. The absolute theoretical limit for “vision” of anything is about 20,000 A due to human eye’s visible spectrum wavelength limitation.

Note that, what we could supposedly “see” with electron devices (wrongly called microscopes) and x-ray devices (spectroscopes), which have much better resolutions, is synthetic image created via specific programmatic interpretation of the non-visual signal data converted into human interpretable image, not a picture of reality but pure conjecture of it. At microcosm scales we cannot see anything.

  1. What about wave-particle dualism. Is it real?

The wave-particle dualism is erroneously interpreted in popular scientific media presentations, and in surprisingly large number of academic courses, as mysterious transformation of individual particle into a wave and back depending what we do with it or how we look at it. None of this is true. This is just mathematical trick of using wave-type of mathematical description when it fits experimental data or particle-type mathematical description when it fits experimental data. When data does not fit theory, data is disregarded, theory persists, similarly to religious dogmas facing medieval inquiries into nature of universe. None of those descriptions (wave vs. particle) relate to individual particle anyway but rather to so-called “particle/momentum” fluxes.

But what this trick hides is dilution of concept of existence of the particle within Quanta framework. In addition to scraping identity of individual particle, concept of existence of particle is being obfuscated. One may think that existing object such a particle should take some limited, well-defined volume of space/time. Not exactly. The quanta theory plays with this common sense notion when convenient. No wonder that such theory is mostly unintelligible to us.

As a sort of replacement of notion of existence of individual particle, Erwin Schrödinger introduced strange wave-function which if squared would provide peculiar distribution function of possible locations of particle, and ways to calculate chances of being found there, instead of definitive location if particle “existed” in common sense meaning. This, wrongly fraised, “ potential existence” concept could be summarized as a case of missing particle which location can only be guessed with certain probability of success. Nothing’s mysterious, just a case of fundamental law of missing sneakers in messy room, we often experience, except sneakers are always located in lowest probability places and always in last place we look. I submit that, there is no split identity or potentiality or actuality of a particle (or a sneaker for that matter) since QM has already abandoned the basic notion of identity and notion of existence has been diluted for mathematical convenience. But even that is not correct interpretation of wavefunction and “probability wave “.

The wave function (square of it or modulus) of individual particle does not actually describe probable locations of individual particle within “cloud” of probability wave but rather probability of locating certain fraction of particles at given location cell out of a cloud of trillions of particles in continuous distributed motion within entire system at certain quantum energy levels.

Unfortunately, based on misunderstood probability wave concept, some proliferate bogus interpretations of reality of universe as being built on possibilities of existence that are being actualized into existence, supposedly when we focus, think or measure them. Again we do not measure individual particle but fluxes (of whatever) by methods of massive integration processes and by applying large perception pyramid and “commonly” accepted rules as I wrote in previous posts. That’s why physicist have to be trained young so they adopt, without questions, arbitrary concepts, interpretations and perceptions as rock solid foundations of knowledge while most of the concepts and scientific conclusions were product of agonizing tradeoffs and uneasy consensus in scientific community often against any sense of intelligibility.

There is no dualism of reality as far as we can tell, no proof either, but instead reality of dual description of processes we could not theorize about in consistent unified way. There is no potentiality of existence claims stemming from QM. We are dealing with mathematical concepts of fields and not material particles or elements of sense-perceived reality.

  1. What about uncertainty principle, how it relates to reality?

Quantum uncertainty principle, derived by Werner Heisenberg, is not a mystery of nature at all. It is stemming, not from experiment or nature but directly from assumption about mathematical functional space that have been chosen for development of QM. Namely Square Integrable Lebesgue-Hilbert (Unitary) Functional Space (SILHFS) w/ orthonormal base. In QM orthonormal base of Hermite polynomials was chosen.

Any mathematical functional space with characteristics of SILHFS would produce analog of “uncertainty principle” which simply declares that properties of elements in the functional space cannot be determined to arbitrary accuracy. The limit of accuracy is statistically determined as an asymptotic limit at arbitrarily high confidence level.

In case of quantum theory “uncertainty principle” says that event time and energy (momentum and location) of a particle cannot be determined to arbitrary accuracy since their product has limited value of h/2pi where h happens to be Planck’s constant. However, Heisenberg interpretation supposing change of state of particle by sole fact of its measurement as it is disseminated even in some Ivy League schools is simply baseless.

Again what we are dealing with large fluxes of particles not individual particles and problem of unwanted influence of act of measurement on outcome of experiment is not quantum problem or effect but it is centuries old issue, well described in manuals of experimentalists and in books on error analysis, as it was elegantly put by Richard von Mises in his famous book, “Probability, Statistics and Truth” 1957, particularly in his critique of Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle was never directly proved experimentally but it is readily used in QM calculations for convenience. As I mentioned before, inability to precisely determine location or property of the particle is not coming from Heisenberg uncertainty “principle “ but from fact that concept of identity has been abandoned and concept of existence has been diluted in QM.

  1. What is quanta and how it relates to reality?

In microcosm of QM, energy and momentum (translational and angular, and spin) can only assume discrete values. The theoretical necessity of quantization of energy levels (and momentum states) comes from fact that quantum wavefunction equation of Schrödinger and Dirac (wave equation) are of periodic (wavy) nature, imposing discrete, allowable values on Energy as a condition for existence of nontrivial solution.

The quanta is defined as amount of energy (momentum) that particle must acquire (or lose) in order to jump (or drop) onto next allowed energy level (momentum) in equilibrium state. For simplified example: State 0; E0=E1-Q; State 1; E1, State 2; E2=E1+Q; etc., where Q is quanta of energy E. The concept of quanta is purely mathematical and quantum, absent from classical mechanics, and seems to be supported by spectral analysis when applying quantum interpretive framework.

  1. What is mysterious quantum tunneling effect and how it relates to reality?

The proliferated tales about quantum tunneling effect tell us that a particle can mysteriously pass through a barrier like a ghost through a wall. None of it is obviously true. The confusion stems from inappropriate reading of specific solution to wave equation, which is incorrectly interpreted as allowing for finite probability of an event that micro particle may pass through the barrier. In fact we are not dealing here with common sense physical barrier but with electrostatic potential barrier an abstract concept.

The correctly stated problem involves large flux of particles, majority having similar, close to mean (average) energies, lower than barrier potential energy which most of the particles cannot overcome and as a result “bounce back”. However, some small fraction of particles has enough energy to overcome the barrier because particle energy is distributed according to Bose-Einstein distribution (for boson type of particle) or Fermi-Dirac distribution (for fermion type of particle) in equilibrium state and hence there are particles with energies far exceeding average energy of particles in the flux. That’s why in experiments, some fraction of particle flux “appear” on other side of the barrier only because they were able to “jump” over it. Nothing’s mysterious, no passing through barrier here, in this flagship quantum effect.

5a. What’s mystery of quantum entanglement? Or is there any?

Erwin Schrödinger, responding to Einstein claim that QM is incomplete, first introduced quantum entanglement concept while discussing famous Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) paradox. Quantum entanglement, according to academic textbooks, is an outcome of the quantum process where two micro particles at coherent quantum states are represented by one wavefunction, which cannot be decomposed or disentangled into two separate wavefunctions corresponding to individual particle quantum states.

Since entangled pair of particles is described by one wavefunction it exhibits certain common characteristic called “strong correlation of quantum states”, which roughly means that quantum state of one particle determines quantum state of the other particle when measured. The controversial EPR paradox relates to such a case when two particles entangled into coherent quantum states are separated by arbitrary distance and when particle quantum state is measured, the other one quantum state is somehow instantly determined by results of measurement of the first one.

This EPR theoretical result is all too often incorrectly interpreted and proliferated as a proof of possibility of transmission of information between two points in space instantaneously at speeds exceeding speed of light in apparent violation of special relativity theory. This myth even entered quasi-technological realm through unfounded assertions about its applicability to so-called quantum computers, hyper fast systems not restrained by computing speed limitations. These misguided projects embarrassingly involve respectable investors and established scientific institutions.

Unfortunately, proliferated in media and academia common interpretation of the EPR paradox is simply groundless. First, since the effect is claimed to be resulting from supposed preservation of correlation between two entangled quantum states (particles) separated by a distance, the assertion that event of measuring one particle cause change in other particle quantum state instantly via mysterious act of communication or how Einstein put it through “spooky action at a distance” is simply illogical. The problem is that correlation of quantum states does not imply causality especially when something’s suppose to happen instantly and therefore would be impossible to distinguish between cause and effect, ruling out possibility of serializing information and consequently preventing any type of communications.

There are many more problems with quantum entanglement in QM. As I mentioned before in this post, micro-particles are indistinguishable and they have no identity, which precludes even consideration of two different particles in quantum entanglement in QM since we would not know which is which and in which quantum state is which of two without measurement that supposedly destroys quantum state. In simple words there could be no entanglement defined in a way as described in QM.

Moreover, we are dealing not with individual particles but with large particle fluxes and fields, which would mean that we are dealing with billions of entangled particle pairs instead of well-determined single pair of quantum states. The reality of multitude of pairs of distributed quantum states is rendering application of simple quantum entanglement model moot.

Another issue is proliferated in academia assertion that entangled particles are uniquely represented by single (entangled) wavefunction. Such assertion is unfounded. The SILHFS on which QM is defined requires that every wavefunction is decomposable into some sets of wavefunction components, orthonormal base. defined within it. So wavefunction of the pair particles is not really entangled and could be represented as product of superimposition of two individual wavefunctions.

The fact is that quantum particle entanglement has not been directly proven experimentally at all. Moreover, experimental results, which observables relate to magnetic momentum fields (spin), rather than to particles, are heavily inferred from assumptions of QM rather from the data and therefore have been largely misinterpreted.

The most common example cited is a boson particle with spin 1 (photon) split into two particles (fermions) with spin oriented 180 degrees opposite to each other +½ , -½ . They supposedly are separated, say one sent to Moon, while preserving entangled quantum state. At this stage we obviously do not know which particle is which because they do not posses identity. The probability of earth located particle to have spin +½ is 50% and -½ is 50%. In order to learn which one of two particles is located on Earth we measure the one we have with us and when result is +½ the other located on the Moon supposedly instantly sets to -½. But if result on Earth is -½ the other particle on the Moon supposedly instantly sets +½.

How this could happen? How an act of measurement of one particle sets up quantum state of other particle in entanglement? How to truly understand Quantum entanglement?

No mystery here as well, it is very simple and obvious. Simply nothing happens, no setting up of no quantum state.

Let’ use again analogy of missing sneakers. If you are missing pair of sneakers, you do not know where they are, where is left one and where is right one. When or rather if you ever find right one in your messy room then in that instant remaining sneaker, maybe thousands of miles away at your ex place’s garbage dump, must be the left one. That’s all. That’s a pair of sneakers entanglement miracle. It is just logical exercise in binary setup based on assumption about logical complementarity. Moreover,  even if so called “indeterminate” state of entangled particle existed, it cannot be distinguished from determined but “unknown” state since no measurement is possible to establish that, therefore sneakers analogy is appropriate.

Quantum entanglement is purely mathematical, unintelligible creation, and so far with no proven connection to reality.

  1. Is quanta and ocean of associated unusual concepts intelligible?

Definitely is not in its entirety as I tried to show with alternative narratives about more exotic claims. May be due to this ambiguity of interpretation, slew of complete misrepresentation of QM and free literary artisanship with its epic narratives, proliferated in media and some academic settings, seems to feed religious or neo-scholastic persuasions and in insidious way undermine true advances in human thought and perception of reality, that pushed technological civilization ahead.

The modern science, a revolutionary idea of intelligibility and cohesive, repeatable experimental methods, with all its shortcomings should be passed to new generations aware of its potential and limitations. Proliferating outrageous myths of science ultimately will not succeed in steering creative minds of young people toward pursuing scientific methods of learning about reality around us and in process, will fail in ultimate goal i.e. improving quality of human life here on earth. But instead would produce army of compliant, close minded, learned elite incapable of creative thought.

  1. Does Quantum theory describe reality of microcosm? May be but there is no proof of it. In fact there is no ultimate proof for most existing scientific theories, as I write on this blog, since humanity is still in developmental stage where grasp of objective reality is itself illusory.

*flux is a stream of particles or fields.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “A Note on Science: Surrealism of Quanta.[UPDATED]

  1. Tony Host

    This article in several instances sets up a strawman to knock down, or takes a common popular press misrepresentation and pretends it is the view of actual physicists. In other instances the author is debunking a rough analogy used to illustrate a concept, rather than the concept itself. Examples include Tunneling(particles CAN cross a REAL, PHYSICAL barrier, more correctly, have a nonzero probablity of being on the “wrong” side of it, despite NOT having near enough energy to “break through”
    EPR, the author misrepresents the actually position of physicists on what the physical interpretation is
    Uncertainty principal, the two qauntities to be measured are orthogonal to one another, the act of, or accuracy of, measurement has no bearing on the question, it is impossible, IN PRINCIPAL, NOT JUST FACT, for the two quantities to simultaneously have a positive definite value. It isnt that we cannot measure the exact value, the exact value in that instance simply does not exist
    Entanglement, physicists are well aware no information is transmitted superluminally, however at least one of causality, local realism, or no hidden variables MUST be violated, as PROVEN by experiment.
    Our intuition, evolved from witnessing macroscopic events, is NO SORT OF GUIDE to the truth or falsity of quantum observations. Many quantum phenomena have now been directly observed at near-macroscopic scales , visible to visible wavelength light. Quantum theory is far from complete, but no classical theory can explain quantum phenomena. This is NOT because noone has been clever enough to devise such a theory. The requirements of a theory explaining repeatedly confirmed quantum events mathematically CANNOT be met by ANY classical theory.
    A final caveat: If you think you understand quantum theory, you do not understand quantum theory.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Sostratus Post author

      Wonderful, Einstein did not understand QM but you do. Your genius unfortunately completely missed MAIN POINT of the post, selectively picked and chose anything it suit your baseless, misdirected, or irrelevant to the context, assertions and left the gaping holes in your reasoning, full of mysteries to be taken on faith such as local realism or hidden variables etc., concepts supposedly obvious to every kindergarten child.

      This post is not about QM. The QM as mathematical theory is sound and supported by numerous experiments most compelling through quantum spectral analysis. Nobody but you is questioning these here. Read below:

      Excerpt:
      “The concept of quanta is purely mathematical and quantum, absent from classical mechanics, and seems to be supported by spectral analysis when applying quantum interpretive framework.”

      This is the controversial metaphysical interpretation of what supposedly going on in “reality of microcosm” that defies human understanding grounded in our everyday human experience. If you have read and comprehended at least the below excerpt you would have spared us your uninformed tautological rants but I guess geniuses do not need to read anything, they know everything apriori since their brains transcend physical walls of their skulls and are entangled with whole wisdom of universe. Which means they are not ignorant yet but just undetermined until they utter something. One thing is for sure curiosity, skepticism, doubt or humility is alien to their scientific inquiry.

      Excerpt:
      “I do not intend here to question efficacy of the theory of Quanta but rather aim to question narratives disseminated widely in media, academia, and in many scientific circuits, supposedly explaining foundations of the Quantum theory as closely related to reality of universe. I will attempt to address some more controversial, often characterized as surreal, aspects of theory of QM in context of intelligibility debate continuing on this blog.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Vangrab

        This is the controversial metaphysical interpretation of what supposedly going on in “reality of microcosm” that defies human understanding grounded in our everyday human experience. If you have read and comprehended at least the below excerpt you would have spared us your uninformed tautological rants but I guess geniuses do not need to read anything, they know everything apriori since their brains transcend physical walls of their skulls and are entangled with whole wisdom of universe. Which means they are not ignorant yet but just undetermined until they utter something. One thing is for sure curiosity, skepticism, doubt or humility is alien to their scientific inquiry.

        This is simply not true the fact is the only way to actually prove QM is to shrink yourself to the quantum level and than observe quantum world-facts.

        “I do not intend here to question efficacy of the theory of Quanta but rather aim to question narratives disseminated widely in media, academia, and in many scientific circuits, supposedly explaining foundations of the Quantum theory as closely related to reality of universe. I will attempt to address some more controversial, often characterized as surreal, aspects of theory of QM in context of intelligibility debate continuing on this blog.”

        Answers: How do you know that theory of quanta is true? You cannot observe it in any possible way, how do you know that experiments prove what physicists tell us? How exactly, experiments by themselves do not prove anything at all, since we have barely touched only a piece of the surface of the infinite iceberg called quantum world-how can physicists claim this and it could be completely something different, like I said the only thing that can help to some upper limit is simply to shrink to quantum level and to observe it, plus there is one more crucial fact that everyone repeatedly forgets:
        One interesting note that everyone forgets is the following:
        I will copy the post from this website as well which proves that QM:

        The results of experiments are thought out, pre-conceived prior to experiment via theoretical narratives and as such are being expected. The possible, but unpredicted results are never expected and never perceived (measured) due to specifics of the experiment, which excludes such a possibility. The failure of experiment i.e. obtaining results that are not compatible with predictions of “tested theory” is never examined. The theory however is, and appropriate changes are made to fit to pre-conceived, subjectively interpreted results. This well established, and widely accepted procedure of scientific research is nothing but circular chain of mind conceived arguments, which would always produce results consistent with theory if not for flaws of our binary logic used in our subjective interpretation of the experiment. The test is never against reality but solely against mind-conceived expectation of theory as it is subjectively interpreted.

        More and more exotic experiments are conducted, more and more results will have to fit exactly to theories, whoever in scientific/technical charge, subscribes to not as much due to “power” talk but rather due to the pyramid of interpretive perceptions piled up in minds of those endowed with blessed expertise, unwilling or unable to shake it off. Periodically, coming and going eras of “End of History” in science, following choral repudiation of yesterdays’ absolute truths, misnamed as progress, left us, like our ancestors, really “knowing” nothing except for our immediate everyday experiences and unintelligible theories baked and fed to us daily. Following the same path of transcendental knowledge we share with Neanderthal man, will likely lead us to nowhere else, but where we have already been.

        This post is not about QM. The QM as mathematical theory is sound and supported by numerous experiments most compelling through quantum spectral analysis. Nobody but you is questioning these here.

        Answers: Sostratus, and the fact is QM is purely mathematical construct, and it has not been proven anything in all those experiments, because you cannot observe these experiments on quantum level.

        Like

  2. Mike

    Just throwing this out there. I think it’s safe to say TONS of people understand QM better than Einstein ever could, just by the nature of the fact we have 60 years of research in the field since his death. Someone found some flaws in your argument and you should look at those hard rather than assuming YOU know more than everyone else. And he’s right, you’re getting defensive about a different interpretation of your different interpretation. Your article had a lot of good conclusions drawn from poorly developed arguments. Science is about letting your thoughts be critiqued, and yours was critiqued and you didn’t like it. In the future don’t be so defensive, humble yourself and you may actually learn something.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Sostratus Post author

      Clearly you did not carefully read my post or my response to other comment.That’s regrettable. You claim, that somebody somewhere has unique ability to understand QM, while rest of us do not, is contradictory to principles of modern science i.e. egalitarian principle, otherwise you have occultism and alchemy. Einstein had the very right to questions theory of quanta, and demand answers while authors of the theory have duty to provide required explanations of how the theory is related to reality of universe. That’s scientific process.

      It is puzzling why you seem overly defensive about QM, theory which is never questioned in my post as it is viable theory with large experimental support.
      Here is the quote:

      “I do not intend here to question efficacy of the theory of Quanta but rather aim to question narratives disseminated widely in media, academia, and in many scientific circuits, supposedly explaining foundations of the Quantum theory as closely related to reality of universe. I will attempt to address some more controversial, often characterized as surreal, aspects of theory of QM in context of intelligibility debate continuing on this blog.”

      and from my comment:

      This post is not about QM. The QM as mathematical theory is sound and supported by numerous experiments most compelling through quantum spectral analysis. Nobody but you is questioning these here. Read below:

      Excerpt:
      “The concept of quanta is purely mathematical and quantum, absent from classical mechanics, and seems to be supported by spectral analysis when applying quantum interpretive framework.”

      What I question in my post is ..

      controversial metaphysical interpretation of what supposedly going on in “reality of microcosm” that defies human understanding grounded in our everyday human experience

      And there is one more thing for you to ponder, especially that you failed to provide at least one addressable, specific issue in the post that you disagree.

      One has to be careful not to end up in dogmatic slumber, as D. Hume and E. Kant opined centuries ago while engaging in modern scientific endeavor.
      Science is ever-changing “living” organism. There is no place for dogmas in science and hence there is not need for emotional reactions to scientific arguments that always challenge dogmatic believes. Take an advice, it would be good for your health.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Vangrab

        “Science is ever-changing “living” organism. There is no place for dogmas in science and hence there is not need for emotional reactions to scientific arguments that always challenge dogmatic believes. Take an advice, it would be good for your health.”

        Answer, Sostratus, that is a pure lie because science does not evolve at all, they are stuck in the same place over and over again-why? Because the very fact they always make experiments that supposedly prove theories, not the the ones that
        disprove them-that’s not evolution, that’s dogma-pure dogma, like Church, like religion:

        Like I said above:
        The results of experiments are thought out, pre-conceived prior to experiment via theoretical narratives and as such are being expected. The possible, but unpredicted results are never expected and never perceived (measured) due to specifics of the experiment, which excludes such a possibility. The failure of experiment i.e. obtaining results that are not compatible with predictions of “tested theory” is never examined. The theory however is, and appropriate changes are made to fit to pre-conceived, subjectively interpreted results. This well established, and widely accepted procedure of scientific research is nothing but circular chain of mind conceived arguments, which would always produce results consistent with theory if not for flaws of our binary logic used in our subjective interpretation of the experiment. The test is never against reality but solely against mind-conceived expectation of theory as it is subjectively interpreted.

        More and more exotic experiments are conducted, more and more results will have to fit exactly to theories, whoever in scientific/technical charge, subscribes to not as much due to “power” talk but rather due to the pyramid of interpretive perceptions piled up in minds of those endowed with blessed expertise, unwilling or unable to shake it off. Periodically, coming and going eras of “End of History” in science, following choral repudiation of yesterdays’ absolute truths, misnamed as progress, left us, like our ancestors, really “knowing” nothing except for our immediate everyday experiences and unintelligible theories baked and fed to us daily. Following the same path of transcendental knowledge we share with Neanderthal man, will likely lead us to nowhere else, but where we have already been.

        Like

      2. Sostratus Post author

        First, I must clarify something, I used the word “living” in quotes as a metaphor for ever changing theories to reproduce the experimental results. Sorry that you missed that.

        Also, I never used the word evolve or evolution since it is not appropriate here, however you did and then you correctly dismiss your own assertion as untrue. I am just wondering what it has to do with my post or any of my comments. You seem to be squabbling with yourself.

        As far as dogmas are concerned. In general science should not be dogmatic but unfortunately as you correctly pointed out, all too often is. In most cases it is an authoritarian structure of scientific community with all the vested interests and personal conflicts that results in dogmatic judgments of the results instead of judgment based on merits of scientific endeavor.

        Science should strive to reject dogmas and allow all points of view or new theories regardless of impact on particular scientific careers or funding interests. But that remains to be my wish.

        Like

    1. Sostratus Post author

      It is just optical illusion that sky touches the water, an interpretation of images in our brain that tries to make sense of images, often wrong.

      Obviously many centuries ago such an illusion was taken as a fact and appropriate flat earth theories were developed. That’s why the understanding, and intelligibility of the world around us examined via scientific methods is so critical in scientific endeavor. What we observe or measure is meaningless without appropriate interpretation via scientific application of theoretical concepts.

      Here an excerpt from one of my previous posts about the subject of interpretation of observations:
      https://questfornoumenon.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-note-on-science-believability-vs-intelligibility/

      *To further clarify intelligibility concept here it would be instructional to look at an example of magician showing a trick of turning glass of water into bunny. It is obvious to note that magician actions perceived by audience and what magician really did behind the scenes are two different things. More gullible spectator however, may think that he learned that in order to create bunny, he/she needed to put glass of water into big magician hat, say magic word and then pull bunny out of it. But such a method of making bunnies would not be intelligible to Spectator even if was clearly observed, seemingly providing experimental evidence of conversion of water into bunny. Spectator could even come up with theory of sympathetic force that converts water into bunny in ways exactly as he observed. He would not however, been able to claim he knew how it was done. The mechanism of the water/bunny conversion would not be intelligible to spectator. Only after revealing “magic” secret by magician would spectator be given intelligible knowledge but not about making bunnies from water but about art of deception. Hence, being able to observe or conceptualize phenomenon, what scientific method requires, may make theory of the phenomenon believable, since it produces consistent experimental results but does necessarily makes it intelligible. The ability of theory to reproduce results, does not mean that we gained any insight into a phenomenon. Intelligible theory if true, however, would give us such insight.

      Like

      Reply
  3. non-local variable

    Sostratus, you’re a clever troll?
    – just so I can quote myself later, to prove i didn’t call you a troll. “In this message, I didn’t suggest Sostratus is a troll”

    am i right?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sostratus Post author

      How to spot a troll?

      The troll comments are mean, vicious, of personal nature, directed toward an author or participant of discussion, completely out of context, irrelevant to issues discussed, while declining to address any single point of the original post.

      I leave to others to decide whether or not your comment falls under such a definition.

      Like

      Reply
  4. Pingback: Quantum computers: 10-fold boost in stability achieved - Bruce Whealton | Future Wave Tech Info

  5. Pingback: Quantum computers: 10-fold boost in stability achieved – Bruce Whealton | Future Wave Tech Info

    1. Sostratus Post author

      Bell’s ideas of overreaching superdeterminism, very unfortunately described commonly as a complete lack of choice or free will, and that what we perceive as random behavior is just our lack of knowledge about what’s mechanism going on behind a scenes, is unfortunately just a return to Espinoza’s philosophy of mathematical/geometric universe perceived as mysterious, surprising and unknown or random only because of ours utter ignorance about how it really works.

      But in my opinion it is just because of Bell’s misunderstanding what randomness really is. Already David Hume discovered that in fact the causality or determinism is not something we directly observe (we observe sequences, orders in our experiments) while we deduct, using our mind’s binary logic and rules of syllogisms, an idea of determinism.

      In other words, determinism is a creation of our mind, not something really empirically determined. Hume famously posited “there is no guarantee that experimental data supporting determinism will continue to support it in perpetuity, and one day we may get contradictory results”.

      In fact even in contemporary physics fields that subscribe to determinism, like classical electrodynamics/plasma physics, mechanics etc.,, they accept basic promise that the universe we perceive via scientific methods of repeating observations and in-situ measurements is a most likely, most probable, version of universe faced by human civilization, while on the universe scales it may be just a blip or fluctuation pattern randomly generated.

      In fact many recognize that we are under influence of “deception of determinism” as dominant in reality of nature as we perceive it only because of enormous success of such an approach to solving our engineering problems, as well as moving some braches of science like astronomy and technology significantly ahead, such as tracking of satellites, or building bridges etc., Who wants to argue with predictive power of engineering based a idea on determinism which in fact could be just an illusion.

      Another issue that Bell misread is an argument: What randomness, beyond simple human ignorance of true mechanism of the world’s reality, is all about?

      In a paragraph entitled: Illusion of determinism of:
      https://questfornoumenon.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/a-note-on-metaphysics-of-reality/

      I posited that there is a major difference between generative/algorithmic outcomes and true free random/probabilistic processes:

      “objective reality, .. may as well be un-ordered, indistinguishable, non-deterministic and devoid of causality. Such non-deterministic or rather quasi-probabilistic reality may not be stochastic in nature either, meaning that an instance of objective reality may not necessary be a “result” of definitive generative procedures but perhaps involve undetermined processes defying our probabilistic modeling capabilities.”

      Unfortunately, most of scientists understand randomness as a outcome of a stochastic process that in reality is nothing but a defined/determined generative procedure/algorithm that produces outcomes that follow one or another statistical distribution of attributes of the experiment. The one of well-known and understood (or determined) stochastic processes is a Markov process that produces binomial distribution of attribute outcomes.

      But in fact these constitute just a sliver of a universe of random processes that have no fixed generative procedures at all what superdeterminism seems to deny and want to replace with itself.

      I continue in my post “ A note on Metaphysics of Reality” to argue that superdeterminism is unnecessary and it too much smells of monistic philosophy or religious philosophical works rather that stems from necessity of establishment of scientific foundations in a metaphysical realm:

      “..one may argue that theory of probability might have, in contrast to other [deterministic] mathematical theories, some applicability to accessing or describing some limited aspects of objective reality. This simple and benign statement however has very controversial undertone, suggesting that perhaps, this theory is more than fabrication of out mind but rather it is purely empirical method that embraces some much more fundamental concepts of objective reality, in a form devoid of basic tenets of our built-in a-priori aesthetics.”[ i.e. necessity of time and space framing of all scientific problems];

      The very interesting and important debate about superdeterminism vs. superprobabilism will only continue although the emphasis of finding out what true “objective reality” of universe really is all about has been abandoned since times of Hume and Newton [original spooky action at distance; Newton called gravity field] while the scientists have been focusing almost solely on technological implications of their discoveries neglecting metaphysical ones.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cuetieadmin

        Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

        I have a few followup questions:

        1) What are your thoughts on the discussion of Chomksy regarding Newton and the break of physics with mechanism:

        2) Regarding patterns, data, etc. would you see Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference and later derivations such
        as AIXI as a “foundational” program, as far as a way of going about the world?

        Thanks again!

        Like

      2. Sostratus Post author

        Since you ask me about my thoughts on Chomsky assertions about Newton and mechanical universe I will indulge a little bit more than usual in speculation than I would answering a concrete question. After all we are talking here about or around metaphysics.

        In my humble opinion (note that the core of the philosophical debate about Mind-Body problem is still unsettled and not it likely ever be settled in absolute terms) Chomsky is right. So why people have difficulty to get his point across, the point he’s making for decades now?

        I think it is simply because of seeming simplicity of a mental shortcut for the underlying issue namely calling it suggestively Mind-Body problem what has been in many decades popularized even in scientific community as anything to anyone forgetting what Descartes really meant by formulating the problem in the fist place.

        Chomsky is trying desperately to rectify that but not to avail since the myth of Mind-Body problem seems stronger than reality of it and in our supposedly democratized science things are too often settled by a vote, power of influence, special interests and funding, coercion of fellow scientists to adopt some theory over other theory especially in the environment of scarce hard data, than the power of reason and scientific argument alone.

        And hence since Newton a slew of scientific dogmas emerged but not because they are proven truths or facts but as a results of often rotten search for consensus since scientific community, a part of human community is not immure to machiavellian politics and economic considerations of survival.

        So what is the misunderstanding and why?

        Looking at big picture I see one of culprit was enlightenment and philosophy of liberalism that spread into science and politics, ideas not yet well developed during period of renaissance when Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Descartes lived and hence their view on a Mind-Body problem was quite different than those later popular version of philosophy of enlightenment that seemed to confuse “Mind-Body” problem with “Body and Soul” problem, a theological problem of where exactly soul resides in the body whether or not it is attached to it or just floating etc., and there were very funny theories about that and fat books written to prove this or that absolute truth.

        In fact in Descartes’s understanding, Mind-Body problem was a problem of ancient materialism versus idealism, a philosophy that prevailed over many millennia and was a foundation of medieval scholasticism.

        While materialism of Descartes was not that of Democritus as assertion that everything material is built from the same elements, but questioning the very elements of the material reality as being a creation of our own mind and not objectively exist, nor it could ever exist in objective reality since materiality is a manifestation of mind as Bishop Berkley posited, and stems from the way how we think, how we formulate our ideas.

        One of those very ideas of how we think is an idea of material existence as Kant later addressed via his transcendental philosophy and categories of thought.

        Later even Schoppenhauer writings expressed this sentiment even stronger by putting the first sentence of his famous book “World as Will and Representation” as follows “The world is my idea” meaning that reality, objects, phenomena are all creation of our mind within the framework of specific animal species and in case of human the context is metaphysical i.e. we try in define and understand all the illusions of materialism using our faculty of reason, the fallible reason, arbitrary intuition and formulable concept of social “moral judgment” and unformulable concept of individual judgment an implant of liberal philosophy of individualism as a separation from community, as a separation of mind from the “outside” world. But is there really “outside” world, a world outside of our mind, whatever it may be? Or a notion of anything outside our mind is creation of our mind as well.

        Even Plato played games with his students by telling them why philosophers should rule the world by asking them “if part is less than the whole” and when he got yes answer, he asked again getting the same answer and later concluding that because of the commonality of yes answer these are philosophers who should rule since they do not buy such a obvious fallacy as that “part is less than the whole” as fundamental dogma, metaphorically relating to much later assertions of Kant as of giving such an answer is expression of how we think bearing no proven connection to any objective really.

        In other words, existence of “outside world” (outside of our mind) is not an objective fact but built in necessary assumption, and axiom we must use so we would be able to think about any of our ideas at all.

        The seemingly unsolvable Mind-Body problem is exactly problem that is formulated solely because the way we think vs. what do we think about the Mind-Body problem.

        We may ask: is matter (body) and mind separated from one another, one is outside the other [and that’s as I pointed out is the real mistake forced upon us by ways how we think] if they are, if Mind and Body are separated we are reentering theological disputations (a theology of soul and body) and inadvertently conceive necessity of God like entity, a singular entity, a master key for all our issues that inadvertently surface after succumbing to such a theological slumber.

        If we do not believe in that separation, we eliminate materialism (leaving only ghost (mind) while machine is excised out of the problem) and that includes materialism of God (material existence of God) and expands our mind as a universe itself as Schopenhauer posited in his writings, and hence we are entering a renaissance era scientific materialism while repudiating philosophy of materialism in itself.

        Sounds confusing? It is. And that’s why the myth of Mind-Body problem is hard to shake off. There is simply utter confusion of terminology and hence proper idea cannot be adequately expressed.

        In fact Newton was one of the greatest practitioners of scientific materialism, although it took him time to realize that and he agonized about it but most importantly that it is unintelligible as contemporary standards required modern science to be what I addressed in one of my other post here.

        Newton perhaps realized gradually that both God and sciences were equally fabricated by our mind, former under notion of scholasticism of occult forces (in which the term force is stranger idea than occult), a concept of first cause or capricious sympathetic forces that move our “observable” universe versus some tautological, concise, repeatable [with verified so-called predictive capabilities] mathematical models also concocted in out mind.

        But Newton was not to give up without a fight he wanted believe in materialist philosophy i.e. existence of objective reality of universe regardless of , what Kant and Hegel called necessity of knowing subject to perceive it.

        So he developed mechanics first with adopted Galilean notion of direct contact as a necessary “mechanism” of transfer of universal motion. Hence the materialist philosophy required a sort of “mechanism” accessible by our reasoning faculties, a mechanism meaning a recipe of how it is done, even allowing for repeating the observed behavior, in a sense what we could call a technology based on discovered mechanism.

        An hence we suppose to have mechanical world if materialist philosophy was to be accepted and that was where Newton hit the wall with his gravity studies what prompted him to withdrawal of his “Mechanics” from publication, fearing that it could be a bunch of speculations instead of what he inspired to do namely to uncover true universal laws of material world.

        He discovered that in order to use his mathematical model to explain motion in the universe he has to refer to nothing but occult forces he derided as childish, immature and fraudulent, dishonest attempt of trickery under a pretext of serious scientific investigation as it was suppose to be conducted as understood by by Galileo Galilei, Descartes and scientists of “modern” age.

        The gravity forces and fields, the centerpiece of his concept of materialistic universe, seen as an objective reality were something extremely exotic he could not understand at all as being something possibly existing in any objective material world.

        His major problem with Gravity was the original immediate “spooky action on distance” and hence immediacy of changing of gravitational potential everywhere in the universe even due to minute changes in location of a moving mass as a result of global, long-range nature of a gravity field, an issue that Einstein tried to address with his concept of gravity waves, as a waves of distortion of fabric of space-time.

        At that time a concept of modern scientific theory as a surrender from original purpose of modern science namely to discover how this particular world really works was conceded and instead science was settling for a narrative that more or less accurately reproduce limited experimental data only.

        In a sense for Newton world was “working” one way, not another way and if proper discovery was made we would know precisely how works (a mechanism of universe) it would have ended the scientific pursuit since it would have explain everything in the universe, since it would have been the truth, the only truth how it works and not some guess that fits here or there to the data but not in another cases.

        Unfortunately, contemporary scientist has to settle for a mere guess that fit some set of data and if they do not fit new data those guesses are changed and new better guesses emerge. This is so-called contemporary process of theoretical science, data–>theory; new data–>new better theory etc.,.

        In today’s science there is no need nor expectation to search for mechanism that describe true material reality but suffice a mathematical fit to the data series like least square fit to the data in statistical analysis.

        It may sound shocking but from stand point of Newton, his gravity theory is as good as any other theory by definition, i.e. explaining nothing in metaphysical terms, as we can learn nothing from theory about reality of universe but it is accepted when it reproduces or fits to the limited data as we reduced our scientific aspirations to formulas, “cooking” recipes, or “magician tricks” that support our empirical interpretive framework and that’s how we had our industrial revolution by doing what we had no idea what we were actually doing and still we don’t.

        In the end it turned out that ghost myth cannot be dismissed since as Chomsky pointed out matter is dead and what we are left with is a ghost of gravity, electromagnetism etc., roaming through ghastly mathematical fields concocted by our mind.

        An excerpt about Newton dilemmas from:
        https://questfornoumenon.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-note-on-science-believability-vs-intelligibility/

        There are reasons to believe that for Newton himself, knew that his gravity force was simply unintelligible. It is likely that, he could not comprehend true nature of gravity force and called it himself an occult force, type of mysterious sympathetic force, a familiar concept within field of alchemy and astrology at that time. As a consequence for many decades he seemed to reject whole mechanics including gravity but what’s more interesting, perhaps, he rejected materialistic science completely, as a method of comprehending reality of the universe.
        That would explain his sudden plunge away from true [materialistic] science into alchemy, astrology, occultism, mysticism, and Bible scholarship, which treated the Bible as a source of concrete, reliable knowledge, as desperate attempt to hold on to idea that other occult type forces could correctly describe wide range of observed physical phenomena, just like mysterious gravity describes correctly motion of planets.
        Probably, losing complete faith in his scholarly ability to comprehend true reality, after almost three decades of sacrifice, exhaustion, dissolution and at the end complete mental breakdown, Newton wrote up quickly results of his scientific, decades old, research in his famous, 1687 y. book “Philosophae Naturalis: Principia Mathematica”, later quit Cambridge University and scientific research altogether, embracing shockingly, world of politics, money and affluence which he hold in lowest regard whole his life.

        Well, as I see from your question No 2. you are attempting to open another Pandora box namely the problem of predictability and AI and mathematical concepts of general probability, Solomonoff probability, theory of inductive inference and Bayes’ theorem etc.,.

        Of course I assume that your are interested in my take on those issues from a point of view of metaphysics of reality what this blog is dedicated to and not as much as AI’s undoubtedly significant or even critical impact on technology and social order in broader perspective.

        In other words I will focus on the questions what are they in themselves and what all those things like AI actually mean.

        In my post “A Note on Metaphysics of Reality” on this blog in part I addressed the problem of a hypotheses of objective reality that Newton tried to prove and failed, precisely he failed to prove hypothesis of deterministic objective reality, i.e. a reality with embedded principle of causality which is itself another hypothesis as Hume pointed out, causality is a creation of our mind since we are incapable to observe laws of nature or causes but event orders, sequences of the events from which causality is inferred with specific interpretive framework of our minds.

        In such a context it is interesting to see issue of predictability meaning as being able to predict something that is not yet, did not happened yet but it will or discover something, some object or structure, phenomenon, without actually directly learning about it but deriving it existence, shape or form from some conditions or circumstances, all that requires deterministic reality which, as I wrote, objective reality is likely not, despite of Bell’s overtures about superdeterminism.

        In fact it is unlikely that we will ever be able to predict future, as concept of future is not embedded into objective reality but a product of our transcendental aesthetics of Kant. Yes, again concepts of time and space are stemming from the way we think about universe, not a part of objective reality we have discovered.

        As a second best thing to unachievable deterministic certainty and hence direct admission of significant probabilistic component in the objective reality we resigned ourselves to replacing a prophecy with an educated guess, a probability rather than theological revelation of absolute certainty.

        And this is this kind of predictability we are talking about in any practical applications for AI or similar problems we are facing. We are facing a chance if we are talking about some advantage or we are facing risk if we are talking about some threat. Both are logical complements of one another.

        And that exactly what Bayes’ theorem Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference and similar others are all about namely about asserting a chance of an aprori assumed outcome or failure of thereof, a chance of outcome apriori inferred via additional information, conditions, discovered or imposed constraints, in a language of iterative methods, a previous outcomes fed back as inputs.

        In fact in practical applications, they do not really attempt to predict the outcomes but attempt to limit what we call an event set in the probabilistic space by shrinking its domain of possible outcomes by imposing certain conditions as well as using already known outcomes.

        To illustrate quite crudeness of the predictive algorithms the AI, at current quite primitive reincarnation, uses let consider that we observe from helicopter a guy driving on the street and let’s try to predict if he goes to see a movie or not.

        Theory of inductive inference will tell you that as long as he moves in right direction of a movie theatre we may predict the he will keep moving toward the movie theatre, if he cross a big intersection and keep going straight the likelihood of him getting there is increasing.

        In addition if we know that he entered a street that is the only street to the movie theatre with no u-turns allowed or intersections to turn ahead of him the probability of our predictions increase significantly. If we additionally know that there is nothing on the plaza where the movie theatre is located except for movie theatre itself probability of our prediction reaches almost unity after our guy enters the movie theatre parking lot.

        In other words, as situation develops the range of possibilities decreases dramatically and likelihood of correct prediction increases significantly, but here is where all of that breaks down, only because of failure to understand the theory of probability and meaning of probability as it is defined there.

        Most of those, even professional statisticians are ignoring a fundamental fact that probability applies to only events that actually happen. Events that did not happen cannot have assigned probability to them; probability of events that did not happen is undetermined.

        In fact to illustrate that lets go back to our guy and probability of him going to see a movie.

        What if upon entering the movie theatre’s parking lot instead of parking his car and going inside he is waiting for his girlfriend who actually watched the movie our guy actually hates. The event of a guy seeing a movie did not happen, nor could it have ever happened but we would not know that from a distance of our helicopter and the entire prediction pyramid scheme failed. It failed because of primitive and artificial interpretation of the observed actions and falsity of assignment intentions to performed actions, intentions supposedly “inferred” from certain observable actions.

        In his wonderful book “Probability, Statistics and Truth” Richard Von Mises [1957] explicitly addresses problem of massive misinterpretation not only statistics but most of all very fundamental concept of probability and its correct interpretation possible only in the context of events actually occurring.

        Only if you won a raffle your probability of doing so was 1/1000, if you bought 10 tickets it was 1/100 but if raffle was canceled probability of that was undetermined, event did not happen.

        The Bayesian predictive methods are just that, interactively adjusted probabilities of next event (called improperly “predictions” that implies determinism meaning as there was an outcome that was predicted) based on events that already happened and their probabilities to have happened.

        It could be illustrated as events A, B, C,…,Y, Z, are happening in that order;
        P(B|A) is a conditional probability of event B if event A happened.

        The Bayes’ theorem states:

        P(B|A) = P(A|B) P(B) / P(A); describes what is probability of B now after event A happened.

        So

        P(C|B) = P(B|C) P(C) / P(B); describes what is probability of C now after events A and B happened.

        And ….so on interactively..

        P(Z|Y) = P(Y|Z) P(Z) / P(Y); describes what is probability of Z now after events, A, B, C,.., Y happened.

        This iterative Bayesian chain is unfortunately often wrongly misinterpreted as a decision chain but that implies motivation for those decisions, a human trait and that is plainly out of scope of what Bayesian statistical methods are all about.

        The Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference and so-called Bayesian rule of causation does not and cannot imply determinism [as is required by any conscience decision making process] since as I pointed out after Hume that causality is inferred and what we deal with is correlation among events hence we can only deal with conditional probability of event B approaching unity after event A happened while we cannot assert that event A caused occurring of event B.

        The AIXI framework for AI software development is an example of such as misinterpretation of theory of probability in term of decision making, learning and inference of the future or something unexamined and no wonder that after being around for at least four decades it brought very little advances, dashing huge hype and hopes of many AI enthusiasts and that includes DARPA itself.

        The problem is that software engineers have been fed wrong or simplistic concept what learning is and what intelligence is and what AI could be or should be, both concepts in the center of currently unsettled philosophical discourse.

        In my opinion none of it has anything to do with true AI, which would rather be new, different intelligence than just mimicking human behavior with inhuman efficiency and endurance.

        The widely sheltered under AI umbrella: Monte Carlo iterative method, Pattern matching, object recognition, Linear predictive filtering, Genetic Algorithms, Neural networks, and more all of them are “damn, brute force solutions” to mathematical problems that cannot be generally solved analytically so massive computer power is unleashed not really much of discernible intelligence. Nothing much, what we could call “intelligence” is in it except for human intelligence of whoever wrote the code either in AIXI framework or just massive database driven use case coding.

        More on related issues on determinism and probabilism can be found on this blog here:
        https://questfornoumenon.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/a-note-on-metaphysics-of-reality/

        A sketch of derivation of Bayesian theorem:

        From definition of Conditional probability where P(B), [P(A)] is a probability of event (B) [(A)];

        P(A|B) = P([A,B])/P(B) where P(B) > 0; where P([A,B]) multiplication set, common set, a product set.

        And hence:
        P(B|A) = P([A,B])/P(A) where P(A) > 0; P([A,B])

        From there replacing P([A,B]) we have :

        P(A|B) P(B) = P(B|A) P(A) and then Bayes’ theorem:

        P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A) / P(B);

        Like

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s