This site is full of people interested in implementing intelligence (and even themselves) on a new substrate …. but they’re not going to be interested in the relationship between physics and thought ?
Articles should be legible to the audience. You can’t just throw in a position written in terms that require special knowledge not possessed by the readers. It may be interesting, but then the goal should be exposition, showing importance and encouraging study.
It’s great when thought is considered mechanistically, in terms of physics. It’s also instructive to build ontology around knowability. There is a path across levels of abstraction between physics and intuition, and arguably a shorter path between intuition and logic. But mixing precision of physics with vague intuitive concepts such as “consciousness” at the same level is a no-no, an umbrella fallacy with supernatural a prominent example.
“Articles should be legible to the audience. You can’t just throw in a position written in terms that require special knowledge not possessed by the readers. It may be interesting, but then the goal should be exposition, showing importance and encouraging study.”
I both agree with and disagree with this statement. I agree that a post should be written for the audience. I disagree in that I think people here spend a lot of time talking about QM and if they do not have the knowledge to understand this post then they should not be talking about QM. The other issue is I think this post may be too muddled to really require special knowledge before the author clarifies the post.
General Post Question
The one big thing that confuses me is the title do you actually mean Quantum Monadology? If so are you claiming some use of the formal term monad, or some definition of your own? I don’t see this post as following from some real definition of monads as seen in scientific literature.
General Post Comment
I think to be blunt this post is a bit muddled with ideas from all over the place put into one big pot and the result is not very enlightening. If you haven’t already I suggest you lookup the precise definition of monad. I can’t find it now but there was a paper a while back published on this topic of formalizing QM within the formal idea of monads.
I disagree in that I think people here spend a lot of time talking about QM and if they do not have the knowledge to understand this post then they should not be talking about QM.
We’re all interested in the ‘relationship’ between thought and reality, but I think it’s unlikely that thought exists at the simple, fundamental level of reality that is studied by physicists.
I very much suspect it’s woo, but in any case it’s written for a wrong audience. Mixing physics and thought raises red flags. Downvoted.
This site is full of people interested in implementing intelligence (and even themselves) on a new substrate …. but they’re not going to be interested in the relationship between physics and thought ?
Articles should be legible to the audience. You can’t just throw in a position written in terms that require special knowledge not possessed by the readers. It may be interesting, but then the goal should be exposition, showing importance and encouraging study.
It’s great when thought is considered mechanistically, in terms of physics. It’s also instructive to build ontology around knowability. There is a path across levels of abstraction between physics and intuition, and arguably a shorter path between intuition and logic. But mixing precision of physics with vague intuitive concepts such as “consciousness” at the same level is a no-no, an umbrella fallacy with supernatural a prominent example.
“Articles should be legible to the audience. You can’t just throw in a position written in terms that require special knowledge not possessed by the readers. It may be interesting, but then the goal should be exposition, showing importance and encouraging study.”
I both agree with and disagree with this statement. I agree that a post should be written for the audience. I disagree in that I think people here spend a lot of time talking about QM and if they do not have the knowledge to understand this post then they should not be talking about QM. The other issue is I think this post may be too muddled to really require special knowledge before the author clarifies the post.
General Post Question The one big thing that confuses me is the title do you actually mean Quantum Monadology? If so are you claiming some use of the formal term monad, or some definition of your own? I don’t see this post as following from some real definition of monads as seen in scientific literature.
General Post Comment I think to be blunt this post is a bit muddled with ideas from all over the place put into one big pot and the result is not very enlightening. If you haven’t already I suggest you lookup the precise definition of monad. I can’t find it now but there was a paper a while back published on this topic of formalizing QM within the formal idea of monads.
Maybe they shouldn’t (but not because they can’t understand this post).
As I’ve been saying, I mean pseudo-Leibnizian monads (pseudo because unlike Leibniz’s, they can interact), not computer-science monads.
We’re all interested in the ‘relationship’ between thought and reality, but I think it’s unlikely that thought exists at the simple, fundamental level of reality that is studied by physicists.