Hi Eric,
I definitely agree that the ToK System does not solve or “fully explain” the measurement problem. I do not have nearly the expertise in quantum mechanics to make that claim.
My claims are about the descriptive metaphysical context of the problem. The ToK provides a descriptive metaphysical system to place measurement, observation and propositional knowledge in the proper cosmic coordinates. It also, along with Roy Bhaskar’s ontological formulation, differentiates generative, actual and empirical aspects of the ontic reality (i.e., the time axis).
My primary claim is that when I listen to physicists, they don’t differentiate between these domains, but, according to the ToK System map of reality and science they should. For example, if you go to these two educational videos from Sean Carroll on quantum mechanics and entanglement (here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJlkkOIFjx4> and here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ1KSJbJAng>), you will see that he lists “measurement” and “reality” as the two large classes of conceptual problems. Likewise, if you listen to the history of QM (like here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7dkYZTetE>), it is obvious that there is much philosophical/conceptual confusion. And when I see Max Tegmark’s idealistic map of theories mapping reality, I feel confident they are missing a key perspective. Physics does not afford a theory of physicists.
The ToK maps these as the two vectors of what Carroll calls “reality” from the Big Bang on the time axis and what he calls “measurement” from the knower at science on top of the ToK in the Culture-Person plane of existence. The argument is that much of the confusion is, not unlike the problem of psychology, with background knowledge concepts about what is meant by what. That said, I unlike with psychology, I certainly lack the expertise to get into the weeds and disentangle the actual solution. Somewhat embarrassingly, I don’t even speak advanced math. So, I am surely not up to the task for much of the work that is needed to be done.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of easalien
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
To the TOK,
With regards to the Measurement Problem, I don’t see how the diagram reconciles the incompatible quantum mechanical descriptions (Wigner’s Friend).
α|0⟩S + β|1⟩S
α(|0⟩S ⊗ |0⟩F) + β(|1⟩S ⊗ |1⟩F)
In August 2020, physicists of Heriot-Watt University verified the Measurement Problem as a real physical phenomenon that allows observers their own version of events. Although the model cites empirical observation (singular), what this experiment proved is observations may differ depending on the observer. This remains a major unresolved problem and one that TOK doesn’t fully explain.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__arxiv.org_pdf_1902.05080.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=5tpZKG-zzIQFgtZzdUOyLwntrFxMtRVPmhRMkvi4Z8I&s=Ow6fiVhbron-UZKntjVR9BP5DDr6BJCCcFBP-_BbXKs&e=>
However, if the Mind/Body Separation acts like an event horizon predicated on Memory, this summarily allows enough uncertainty such that both Wigner and Friend can both be valid. That’s why I keep bringing up the black hole analogy even though some take issue with its panpsychist ramifications.
Lastly, I’ll just add the top of Tegmark’s diagram should be Potential, as it encompasses the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics, the spacetime curvatures in General Relativity, the thoughts and feelings of human beings, and all the models we’ve discussed thus far—as well as those we haven’t.
Eric
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:55 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Many thanks for this, Brandon. Here are a few somewhat random thoughts in reply.
First, I think we should be clear that there is a “basic naturalistic evolutionary ontology” present in all of these frames. Perhaps we can call it a basic Big History natural scientific ontological view of cosmic evolution.
Second, different maps emphasize different features, as you note.
Third, I am finding that it might help to be especially clear about what the ToK System map is all about. Fundamentally, it maps the natural scientific ontological terrain in a way that allows us to address the Enlightenment Gap and the problem of psychology.
Fourth, I believe that is a requirement for any comprehensive “theory of scientific knowledge”.
Fifth, the nature of the gaps the ToK fills requires other Big History maps to be referenced against it if they attempt a consilient view. For example, if Tegmark believed the top of his diagram was a “theory of everything,” then one must ask him “what are theories?” My argument is that what physicists call theories of everything are theories of matter in motion. But a true TOE requires a frame on what theories and human knowledge are. That is, they must include a frame for metaphysics. And, I don’t see how you get to metaphysics via a naturalistic ontology without “going through” the problem of psychology. The ToK System affords a map of the (a) ontic reality and (b) scientific onto-epistemological theories about that reality in a coherent whole.
Sixth, that said, we should all be clear that the ToK System (and UTOK) is primarily situated to map certain problems or aspects of the territory. For example, it is definitely helpful to situate the UTOK in the context of American Psychology. Said differently, it is not developed as a theory of sociology. Indeed, as a map of natural phenomena, the ToK does not directly map the evolution of technology, which probably is necessary for a coherent theory of sociology and economics. That is, it would need to be tied to something like Arthur’s work in The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.goodreads.com_book_show_6321234-2Dthe-2Dnature-2Dof-2Dtechnology&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=6mpWPmZJGaVKX5j0GuAG8jdR3Rx6cI8JrkIUIaX8dlk&s=83riV0JoIJ-rVoBrwGlB4B6YeztxIjqRBc4oMPLVC1s&e=> (thanks to Yahya Ahmed for this reference). (We can think about JUST bridging into social psychology, cultural anthropology and microsociology, but macro-level analyses would require additional insights and bridges to technological structures/infrastructures.
Finally, all this suggests science is about a “base reality”. Common wisdom says that science is an epistemological method or tool. Yes, but a tool in and of itself is not too valuable. The ultimate value of scientific epistemology is that it is a tool that produces ontological claims about the ontic reality. A coherent scientific naturalistic worldview has not been achieved, but perhaps it can be. It should NOT be construed as a theory of everything, as scientific knowledge is blind to idiographic subjectivity and morality. But it would be a hell of an achievement. To use Daniel Schmachtenberger’s term, it could provide us an enduring map of “base reality” (i.e., grounded in an objectivist, third person coherent onto-epistemology).
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Brandon Norgaard
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
After studying both Tegmark’s and Lee’s diagrams, I had some thoughts. This isn’t closely related to the main focus of this thread so far, but here is how these graphics might relate to the ToK overall: One thing that stands out to me in Tegmark’s diagram is how it is more granular within the matter and life planes of existence (there are multiple boxes for each) but only one box a piece that would correspond to the mind and culture planes. Lee’s graphic features multiple “bang” graphics that would be within each of the four planes. His graphic’s sub-elements are more analogous to the planes within ToK, since each of these are expanded and represented by multiple phenomena. Tegmark was more interested in the lower-level phenomena, but I’d be interested in expanding his graphic to include more higher-level phenomena. For example, it is interesting to me how economics and political science could, based on a certain perspective, be considered sub-fields within sociology. This would be somewhat analogous to how Gregg unified behavioral, psychoanalytic, humanistic, and cognitive science into psychology. He clarified the meaning of psychology to frame all of those. If sociology could be similarly clarified to include all of the social sciences, then the most significant distinction between the traditional notion of sociology and that of economics and political science would be the type of language games that are being played. This would hinge on the distinction between the notions of de facto and de jure. Informal sociology, linguistics, and anthropology are probably mostly based on de facto language games, whereas the market and the polis are based on those that are de jure. I suppose there would be at least 3 major types of language games:
* De facto: common and informal situations in life where simple acts of communication among people have understood outcomes. These are within the framework of human instincts and societal norms
* De jure: formal situations in life where there are rules for getting things and for affecting outcomes with acts of communication. These are usually within the framework of some collective imaginary, such as the market or governments or legal systems or institutions or companies or organizations.
* Complex: there is so much going on and things are so complex, so many actors, so much communication, that it is not that helpful to think of language games in the original Wittgensteinian sense. These are de jure and de facto at the same time, interacting with each other in complex ways.
I imagine that Tegmark’s graphic could be expanded to include multiple branches of psychology and also multiple social sciences. In addition, perhaps circles could be drawn around the several boxes that would make up each plane of existence.
Brandon Norgaard
Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of lee simplyquality.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=5tpZKG-zzIQFgtZzdUOyLwntrFxMtRVPmhRMkvi4Z8I&s=vpUCA1h57t2hBtzdLMiQ8nUEWF4dm7wWUIrws6ow0u0&e=>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
Thanks,
Please compare the Tegmark diagram to the attached “emergence” diagram (previously shared with you, probably directly) I created a few years ago.
When I was creating the attached graphic diagram I recognized that I could not make it both complete and accurate.
(Probably not a law of nature, but a symptom of my finite skills, energy, and attention.)
Tegmark expands and emphasizes some areas more than the attached, and the attached, continues a bit further toward human nature.
I spent some time looking for a software tool that would be useful in creating a directed graph.
With such a tool I could construct the diagram more as a database than as a graphic representation. (Each node would have explicit connections to and from other nodes. The nature of the relationship each connection represented could be described.)
Each “topic” would be a node in the directed graph and the user could “frame” up to collapse the details into a single broader topic, or the user could “drill down” to see more detail.
Also, the tool would allow users to add detail at any level of the network. (And the nodes could link to the corresponding Wikipedia article. One interpretation of the hyperlinks among Wikipedia articles is that they form such a network.)
I have not yet found such a tool that was useful and affordable.
(Hence my use of the word “seeking”).
I know of a ToK member who is working on an integrated collection of (world) knowledge that may be an more advanced conception of this.
Thanks,
Lee
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
Lee,
I pulled this off Max Tegmark’s page. To me, it is a map shows the difference between his idealist view of the world and the ToK System’s view of human knowledge. Notice that this only includes scientific theories and domains. It does not include a map of the ontic reality (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture), nor does it include the place of human knowledge in the cosmic coordinates.
WHAT GOES AT THE TOP?
[cid:image001.png@01D71A2A.C16A5980]
From: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
Thanks, Lee.
I **HATE** the many worlds interpretation as an ontology…however, I **LOVE** the “as if” many worlds, which then gets translated into the realization of a multiple epistemological frames aspectualizing an ontic reality whereby knowers and known are entangled at the edge of the informational transition that is unfolding from a probabilistic potential into an actual empirical. Sorry if that is a mouthful.
Maybe we can discuss at some point.
Best,
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of lee simplyquality.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=5tpZKG-zzIQFgtZzdUOyLwntrFxMtRVPmhRMkvi4Z8I&s=vpUCA1h57t2hBtzdLMiQ8nUEWF4dm7wWUIrws6ow0u0&e=>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
Gregg,
Thanks for this.
I have been a big fan of Sean Carroll<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.preposterousuniverse.com_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=mB3LYV1HllYOj4CcR1fsi1rwtT7FlMAnc3_HyXQ0k1M&e=> for several years.
Regarding the quantum measurement problem, Sean Carroll recently wrote the book “Something Deeply Hidden” where he explores the Everett interpretation (many worlds<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Many-2Dworlds-5Finterpretation&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=0Afzy5y3BqcQwEiYdo_KIN3LZ6wKnmoJ3grSNgCro-I&e=>) interpretation of the problem<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Copenhagen-5Finterpretation&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=ynr8U4bDhTQNzZDp2WURgn0iyYf43fmbxR-SD85MCPI&e=>. I read it shortly after it was published in September 2019.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Deeply_Hidden<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Something-5FDeeply-5FHidden&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=8neumfJt1cmzKDYxFY0VV0-tWcGVfnbQfmct361oFdE&e=>
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
Aspiring poetic naturalist
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: TOK Coherent Naturalism and the Measurement Problem
Hi TOK Folks,
I have started a deep dive into Sean Carroll’s version of reality and am almost through his book on The Big Picture and am listening both to his lectures and Mindscape podcasts. I see him and his “poetic naturalism” as very much in the ballpark of E O Wilson’s consilience, only from the vantage point of a physicist rather than an entomologist.
I am doing a deep dive here because I position the UTOK in part as a “coherent, emergentist naturalistic” philosophy. If folks have opinions about him or recommendations, I would welcome them. To me, he represents the best “objectivist natural science” Big Picture view that is currently getting mainstream attention, aside from the more widespread Big History movement (which he curiously seems not to mention, which I don’t really understand, as his approach is clearly a Big History variant). I am framing the UTOK’s scientific position to be that of “coherent naturalism”. The crucial point of “coherence” that must be wrestled with from the UTOK vantage point is the Enlightenment Gap and its down stream consequence, the problem of (American) psychology.
As a physicist, Sean Caroll is not informed about this issue (although he is, of course, aware that here are problems in understanding mind and consciousness). From the physics angle, the central problem of coherence is the relationship between quantum theory and general relativity. I found this Mindscape podcast<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.preposterousuniverse.com_podcast_2019_08_12_59-2Dadam-2Dbecker-2Don-2Dthe-2Dcurious-2Dhistory-2Dof-2Dquantum-2Dmechanics_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=YULr_jp92GxZCqaTIULhvkH9TTe1PoqW7inqyjxpGt4&e=> on the history of quantum mechanics valuable. It overlaps significantly with Lee Smolin’s most recent book on Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Einsteins-2DUnfinished-2DRevolution-2DSearch-2DQuantum_dp_1594206198&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=TmrB_rnJ_YsNSaGojOmqaUaeEs5DZDeXVJI7Idy7m2k&e=> in that it returns to one of the core problems, call the “measurement problem”.
As suggested by this slide, it is the metaphysics of the measurement problem that the UTOK addresses.
[cid:image002.png@01D71A2A.C16A5980]
If folks on this list have knowledge of the measurement problem, I would welcome a discussion about it or references to it.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=hNFp33pJSpgFCu108BCbA3E-RYQExMPzKZzkTUwlHDc&s=6ukfvQmVlZgqzqW586pxZkw3xYhWw4pwgfCKOiaaL3M&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
