I will be developing this post during the coming days. It will be based on this interview:
Alexey Krugly about Quantum Gravity and the Information Universe
See also this lecture (in Russian)
** Russian subtitles in .srt format (with timestamp)
I am now reading the transcript and highlighting the essential sentences. Will replace the doc when finished.
Kruglov mentions in Particular David Finkelstein and his "Space-Time Code" ideas. These ideas has been developed in a monograph "Quantum Relativity", Springer 1996. At some point I was very excited about this approach, where Finkelstein started with "At the beginning there was a Word". The idea is, more or less, that the Universe is resembling something similar to the Matrix in the movie, a computer game running by some algorithm. Which leaves, however, unanswered th question: where is the Programmer who selects the algorithm to be run. Kruglov, in his talk, stresses the fact that only quite a small number of algorithms leads to "interesting" and self-organized and self-propagating structures. Kruglov, Wolfram ot Conwey (the creator of Game of Life) are doing essentially the same, though Kruglov is using random events while Cellular Automata and Game of Life are using deterministic algorithms. All of them are far away from the notions of awareness and consciousness. There is more to life then just self-organization and self-replication.
And with the next post we will be back to a gentle math. Esoteric concepts must, at some point, give us inspiration for creating rigorous abstract structures that can be used as mathematical models. It is much like a painter who converts personal and subjective ideas and visions into framed paintings that can be shared with other people. The painter needs paints, brushes and canvas. A physicist needs integer numbers and algebras.
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
ReplyDeleteQuestion:
"As far as I understand the information implies the existence of a subject, in some ways it can be called the bioinformation, because without the live observer, it loses its meaning."
Alexey answer:
"..information is the basis of everything. Everything consists of information."
Remark:
In the past there was a theory that everything is a mechanical mechanism/machine."In this work, de La Mettrie extends Descartes' argument that animals are mere automatons, or machines, to human beings." WIKI
Conclusion:
Alexey can't be as dumb as he pretends to be?
"Seemed the better way
When first I heard him speak
Now it’s much too late
To turn the other cheek
Sounded like the truth
Seemed the better way
Sounded like the truth
But it’s not the truth today.."
https://youtu.be/0nyMrjGX2vk
@ Toaugher ttr
Delete"Alexey can't be as dumb as he pretends to be?"
While this is a blog, not an academic discussion, nevertheless in the future I would like to see a reasonable respect to serious scientists who did not do anything reprehensible to you.
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark
"I would like to see a reasonable respect to serious scientists who did not do anything reprehensible to you."
If someone on a serious question about the subject ignores the problem then he either does not understand or pretends not to understand. On the other hand, he has the right to believe - that he himself is only information - but then he must accept that he will be treated as information (not a Human). In addition, depriving others of humanity/subjectivity - by reducing them to information - can be perceived as reprehensible.
"In addition, depriving others of humanity/subjectivity - by reducing them to information - can be perceived as reprehensible."
DeleteWhat is so reprehensible about being "reduced to information"? If the ALL is infinite potential to BE, (which seems obvious to me), then certainly, that describes some sort of information field from which All-that-is emerges, including angels, demons and human beings, not to mention all the structures and objects of the material and non-material universe.
And in the end, it is all subsumed back into the Field, which is God, and begins again. After all, what else does God have to do with his "time" other than experience Himself in myriads of ways? Al-Arabi said that the state was constriction and the motivation was desire...
I did not see any evidence that YOU are NOT information - in some very special sense of the terms "you" and "information". In a discussion on scientific topics one should support ones beliefs by some evidence or state explicitly that these are your personal beliefs without any support. The term "Human" that you are using is undefined in the context of this discussion. If you say that "humanity" is "subjectivity" - it seems strange, because one of the fundamental aims of human scientists is to be as objective as possible.
DeleteAnonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Laura
"What is so reprehensible about being "reduced to information"?"
Of course, someone can enjoy the fact that he is reduced, for example, to a protein mass objectively measurable by weight. His subjective will - but - surprise surprise - not everyone has to enjoy such a reduction. And this subjectivity is what makes people different, and it (subjectivity) is what determines one's being human - and not just a protein bag. Of course you are entitled to your preferences but let others have others.
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark " fundamental aims of human scientists is to be as objective as possible. "
Doesn't this cause you consternation. Why, in an objective (scientifically ) world, scientists have to set goals - and objectivity is that goal. It seems that without special efforts this objectivity does not exist? And what strives for this objectivity is....yes is this non-existent or unimportant subjectivity?
The topic of definitions is a bit ridiculous - we are discussing information - because a good definition does not exist ( about ghosts,demons, mass, gravity, time, context I will not mention ). Of course, there are scientists ( not physicists ) dealing with subjectivity but that is a rather different area.
@ Togher
Delete"what determines one's being human - and not just a protein bag."
You seem to fail to distinguish between material objects like "protein bags", and nonmaterial objects like "information field". Distinguishing them is very important.
@Tougher
Delete"there are scientists ( not physicists ) dealing with subjectivity"
For a constructive discussion it would be good to give a name or two of these scientists, and provide references to their scientific publications. Then we will have something handy for a possible discussion.
More precisely: to distinguish between material objects such as "protein bags" or molecules and atoms and concepts refering to nonmaterial realities such as "information", "consciousness" or or "God".
DeleteAnonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark " would be good to give a name or two of these scientists,"
There is google - but - please:
Subjectivity and Infinity Time and Existence
by Guoping Zhao
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45590-3
John McDowell on Worldly Subjectivity: Oxford Kantianism Meets Phenomenology and Cognitive Sciences
by Tony Cheng
https://www.amazon.com/John-McDowell-Worldly-Subjectivity-Phenomenology/dp/1350126713
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark "distinguish between material objects such as "protein bags""
The problem was reductionism - that is, treating man as only one of his attributes. The mass attribute was chosen on purpose-as simple and understandable. It may not have been nice - but it was just meant to show in simple way that such reduction may not be nice for the recipient. Contrary to what you suggest, information is completely dead like letters on paper and the body though perhaps mindless is biologically alive.
@Tougher
DeleteTo już lepiej. Zacznijmy od dyskusji filozofii McDowella. Zalecany tu Cheng, autor monografii, tak pisze na końcu:
" In contemporary terms, the realm of law and the space of reasons can be understood in terms of ontological levels of existence : the realm of law covers physics, chemistry, and perhaps biology and empirical psychology (scientific image), while the space of reasons covers folk psychology (manifest image). How can folk psychology be naturalized without being reduced? One intuitive way of developing this line is to hold that the space of reasons exist as a higher-level phenomenon , which enjoys a unique ontological status. In the context of free will, Christian List (2019) has argued that free will is such a higher-level existence. However, he holds that both supervenience and emergence hold for free will, which results in an unstable position (Cheng, in preparation): supervenience as he understands it implies necessitation, which is not compatible with a robust notion of emergence. McDowell, I believe, needs to insist that the space of reasons as a whole is an emergent phenomena, because this is the only way any dualism can hold in this area. Other relations, such as supervenience, necessitation, metaphysical explanation, realization, grounding, ontological dependence and constitution, all make the space of reasons too close
to the realm of law, and therefore does not fi t McDowell’s purposes. How this emergence can be cashed out is of course a daunting task, and in this respect, McDowell’s view concerning reasons and mentality as a whole is very similar to Chalmers’ view concerning consciousness (1996). McDowell’s own statement on the personal and subpersonal levels (1994/1998a) cannot be satisfactory without a positive account of emergence."
So there is the question of emergence. Philosophers are evidently unhappy with the present state of affairs. No one seems to be sharing your exaggerated reaction.
@Tougher
Delete"Contrary to what you suggest, information is completely dead like letters on paper"
You do not know that. It may be more alive than you think. Letters on paper are not dead. There are those who are able to feel the soul behind the letters and the hand that was touching this paper.
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark "No one seems to be sharing your exaggerated reaction. "
They probably have not had the pleasure of discussing with someone who seems to ignore subjectivity. I wants to clarify that these were - as requested - examples of scientists dealing with subjectivity. That is, the first two items from the corresponding folder on my disk. The fact that I listed them does not mean that I share the views of these authors - it only shows that such scientists exist.
DeleteAnonymous:Tougher ttr
@Ark "There are those who are able to feel the soul behind the letters and the hand that was touching this paper."
Just because someone with special abilities can perceive/interpret more information does not necessarily mean that it is contained in those characters ( word letter was misleading translation). Information of what kind it would be without a receiver/interpreter does not make sense.
@Tougher ttr: Of course, someone can enjoy the fact that he is reduced, for example, to a protein mass objectively measurable by weight. [...] Of course you are entitled to your preferences but let others have others.
DeleteI am not talking about preferences, I am suggesting a way to look at what may lie behind/above our reality.
Imagine a field of infinite potential - and that includes To Be or Not To Be. Think of it as a vast sea of ideas and meaning reduced to the most basic version of "yes or no", "on or off", "positive or negative." And because there is nothing material about this sea of potential, those bits that have affinity move together, like the way fat collects on a bowl of soup. Because of self-organizing, according to principles of affinity, they become magnificent pools of purity off ideas/thought/Being. You could call them archangels. Ibn al-Arabi called them the Names/Faces of God.
"The Essence of God is known just for itself and remains unknown for us, humans.
"However, God unveils its names and attributes, through its creations, which are the manifestations (tajallī) of its different divine Names.
“The Koran often speaks of God’s ‘names’ (asmâ’), and it mentions a good number of them—not ‘ninety-nine’, as is traditionally said, but anywhere between seventy and twice as many, depending on the criteria used in counting. The names, which are often called ‘attributes‘ (sifât). […] What we know from the names is that ‘He/She’ is merciful, knowing, alive, and so on, but in itself the Essence remains unknown. Each name designates a specific quality that becomes manifest the moment there is talk of the Real (al-haqq) and creation (al-khalq). Hence Ibn ‘Arabî says that the divine names can properly be called relations (nisab) [between God and Creation].”
"The Names of God are realities in divinis God unveils (kashf)."
Zoroaster called them Amesha Spentas, or Bounteous Immortals. They are:
Spəṇta Mainyu Holy/Creative Spirit/Mentality
[Vohu] Manah Good Purpose
Aša [Vahišta] Truth / Righteousness
Xšaθra [Vairya] [Desirable] Dominion
[Spənta] Armaiti [Holy] Devotion
Haurvatāt Wholeness
Amərətāt Immortality
But that level is very far above us. Many transformations and even creative acts occur on that "isthmus" between All-that-is and man. Nevertheless, I think these ideas are a reasonable metaphor for Information as the primary nature of All That Is.
Even the legend that the souls of the human race are the shattered fragments of the cosmic soul of a fallen angel is interesting in this respect.
And in no way is any of this activity described above "material." Though, certainly, matter already exists at this level as an IDEA that also self-organizes and agglomerates to become the stuff that spirit acts upon.
@Tougher ttr:
DeleteI am citing the following only because it is a mystical rendering of the very scientific study of Information and the proposition that Information is the stuff of everything both non-material and material.
From William Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge":
We see that God actually manifests Himself in the forms that make up the contents of the cosmos and our minds. God “imaginizes” Himself everywhere; wherever we look, we perceive His “dream”. Hence, we love God in everything that we love. God reveals Himself in every form, thus making it necessary that we love Him in any form that we love. Hence, all the Cosmos is noble in respect to its substance. There is no ranking in excellence within it. A maggot and the First Intellect are the same in the excellence of the substance. Ranking in excellence becomes manifest only within the forms, which are the properties of the levels.
The Barzakh or Breath of the All is one entity, which is neither Being nor nothingness; it is imagination, which is He/not He. In this intermediary realm, every attribute necessarily goes back to God, who is the source of each reality, even the reality of “non-existence”.
The All undergoes fluctuation in states to make manifest our entities; just as the number “one” undergoes fluctuation in the levels of the numbers to make manifest their entities.
“Whithersoever you turn; there is the face of God.”
God is the root of all “noble character traits”. He is also the root of the “base character traits”.
Having been created in the divine form, man embraces all the divine names and contains within himself all God’s character traits. The task of the spiritual traveler is to bring the names and character traits from latency into actuality in perfect balance and harmony. All character traits, both the noble and the base, which become manifest from man lie in his innate disposition. They belong to him in reality, not metaphorically or as a borrowing. In the same way, God possesses every name by which He has named Himself — including creation, giving life and slaying, withholding and bestowal, making, deception, guile, mockery, decision, decree, laughter, rejoicing, wonder, receiving joyfully, abasing, forgiving, avenging, merciful, wrathful, etc.
@ Tougher
Delete"Just because someone with special abilities can perceive/interpret more information"
Very good. So you seem to share the view that "information" is important even in paranormal and perhaps also spiritual matters. Perhaps it is even fundamental? Perhaps yor "subjectivity" comes from self-excitation of your information gathering capabilities, information about your state of awareness and ho it relates to the states of being of other participant of the show called Reality.
@Tougher
Delete"The fact that I listed them does not mean that I share the views of these authors"
Are there scientists-authors that you share the views with? Any example of their works? You do not share the views with me about information, you don't share the views with scientists writing about your beloved topic - subjectivity? Is there any scientist with whom you do share your views? Or are your views purely subjective/non-scientific?
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Laura "scientific study of Information and the proposition that Information is the stuff of everything both non-material and material."
Thank you for your extensive explanation. I'm not a theologian so it's hard for me to comment - especially in English - but in principle I don't see the controversy. Returning to the information here, unfortunately, there is no consensus. Information is a concept with a scientifically defined meaning. I have studied this field a little and I cannot agree with Alexey's statements.
Once again I will use a metaphor. Let's say you've never seen a kitchen robot (you don't know what information is). Someone comes along and tells you that you are a kitchen robot (information). Then you automatically take for granted that this robot encapsulates souls and spirituality,consciousness , feelings, etc.... And suddenly some guy says that calling a robot is offensive. You convince him that the kitchen robot ( information) contains everything you need and he accuses you of lacking spirituality. However, it is different he knows that the robot (information) has nothing of what you expect from it. All in all, you mean the same thing, but you understand the situation differently.
As for subjective vs objective views, there is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:
DeleteA subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the “proper” suggestions to make this “true” were given, such as “you will NOT see so- and-so” etc… When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.
Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.
So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room… that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described… the door was opened and shut to provide “sound effects,” and then the subject was brought out of the trance.
Guess what happened?
He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.
Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain “censors” in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.
So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work – they attempt to operate against a “belief system” that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)
One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.
In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe – the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his “belief center” – even if that activation was fraudulent.
And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist – the “official culture” – and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the “Invisible Man” because he chooses not to see him.
The implication of the story of the "Third Man" is far deeper than merely implying the presence of spirits in the world being masked from us by our belief systems. This is only a sort of partial awakening to other realms. If you take away the specific scene in which the story is portrayed, leaving only the third man and the observer, you can extrapolate that the Third Man represents all of the phenomena of our world. We see a flower, but we are hypnotized as to how to perceive it. We see clouds, but we are hypnotized as to how to see them. We don’t really know what the true reality is! We don’t really know what an “essential flower” looks like. What we are seeing is our interpretation of a series of waves or fluctuations of the medium of our reality, which we interpret according to our programs or hypnosis. We see only three dimensions of what is conceivably several.
DeleteThe next important thing about the story is that, depending on the program different people can attribute different hidden forces to the phenomena presented, according to their belief systems. But, what we wish to know is: what is the objective reality?
Each and every human being perceives the Third Man according to their programming which activates or is activated by their belief system. This is their “state of awareness”. They can only be aware of what they believe they can be aware of, and all else becomes either “invisible” or “anomalous” and disregarded or covered up by the survival program of the subconscious mind.
As one continues to think about this problem, one realizes that there is a possibly huge gap between what we perceive as real and the actual objective reality… and no matter how we try to be objective, we can never be sure. The only thing that seems to offer a way out is to simply observe the phenomena and compare the perceptions with a lot of other folks and try to narrow down the “constant” that is present in all of them. In this way, we can have a closer idea of what the Third Man really is, and what he is really doing, and what then, should be our best response. And, of course, observing phenomena means, in its most literal sense, to gain and gather knowledge of every form and sort so that one has a sufficient database from which to draw conclusions about observations of one’s environment.
In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen describes denial as an “unconscious defense mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality.” Reasons for denial vary between those clearly known to unpleasant truths that fatigue us upon acknowledgement.
DeleteDifferent types of denial may include:
1) Literal denial,
2) Interpretive denial,
3) Implicatory denial.
These vary from simply denying that the existing facts exist, to changing the interpretation of a given experience, to relinquishing the moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement of a given truth.
Cohen discusses five different contexts of psychological denial:
1) perception without awareness,
2) perceptual defense,
3) selective attention,
4) cognitive errors, and
5) inferential failures.
His conclusion is that “the scientific discourse misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon … a product of sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives”.
@Rougher
Delete"However, it is different he knows that the robot (information) has nothing of what you expect from it."
Perhaps your view on information is too restrictive? Wheeler with his eye looking back at the Creation to make it "real" probably has a somewhat wider view. For me, I am wishing to take from Alexey as much as I need, and interpret it the way I need. This is always a personal choice: do we want to learn something new? Or do we think we know all better?
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark "Or are your views purely subjective/non-scientific?"
If this explanation satisfies you then I agree :)))
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark "Perhaps your view on information is too restrictive? "
too scientific? And how do I reconcile that with the fact that I am non-scientific? But for me (subjectively) it does not matter :))))
@ Tougher
Delete"And how do I reconcile that with the fact that I am non-scientific? "
Non-scientists can also expand their views and learn new things.
Anonymous:Tougher ttr
Delete@Ark "Non-scientists can also expand their views"
if they need it - then certainly yes :)))
I would like to address the issue of being 'reduced to information.'
DeleteHere it is worth pointing out that we, socially, are programmed to accept that we are somehow isolated from 'God' - that he is a separate entity from us. Or that the material world around us is isolated from our consciousness and that our consciousness is only in our heads without connection to the All being. Or that we walk the Earth, dominate it and use it, rather than being a direct part of it, of Nature.
In such a way, starting from such a point, being 'reduced to information' can portray humans as a collection of zeros and ones (as in computer science), which are things of little importance, devoid of any humanism or spirituality or something like that - a very shocking and depressing image... at least.
I, therefore, would like to present a slightly different picture of it, that have connection to the computer science and bits, however in another way: Imagine that you are in no way isolated from Information. Imagine yourself as an endless number of bits of information set to 0. Notice that with each successive zero you go deeper into this abyss. Finally, at some point in this infinite "journey" into yourself you realize this "movement", but you continue to understand nothing, because all that surrounds you is a vacuum of zeros. And at the moment of awakening you choose that you want to discover yourself, and then you recognize that you will turn all those bits of information from 0 to 1.
What can happen then, because in me, in my imagination, all those bits = 1 produce an indescribably bright and powerful light, as they were 'lighted' from 0 (off) to 1 (on).
By creating an equilibrium between 'zeros' and 'ones', I can say that it is a black circle in the center (zeros) that PUSHES out a very bright light (ones). Consciousness, in this example would be a Connector between bits of information = 0, with bits of information = 1. And this Consciousness is the same as yours and mine, as well as everyone else's, the only difference between us is that we are divisions of this Consciousness, having our "smaller" consciousnesses with different fillings of different information already structured into something that we can call our being.
From all of it, the most important is to think about it as, at the root of it all, each of us is that black circle in the center, which when it becomes conscious releases all that light, which is also information. So there is no difference between us and Information. And this is more then be 'things' as 'ones' and 'zeros' in the computer program.
It is interesting to see the analogies to computer science as we know it, there are some more I think. If each of us is this "Divine" Consciousness containing the black circle of bits = 0 and the light of bits = 1. Then where is our individuality? Namely, each of us has our own Copy of All Existing Information for ourselves, on the basis of which we can build our individuality, in any way we want (Free Will). And since there are no limits to disposing of all this information, nor is there any reason to limit this in any way, so there is always the possibility for a new individuality to arise and grow following endlessly repeating great cycles of learning. What is New in this process is Will of ordering that Information, becuase set of Information to use is always the same.
And "reducing someone to information." It does not mean, in the context in which we are discussing it, that someone is sliced into pieces and served like mush on a plate (although in some sense, it can also be shown that way...). However, there is something deeper at stake here...
In "reducing someone to information" it is about pointing out different hidden nature of our existence, which takes place on another plane of ourselves and takes place there parallel to what we experience here and it is ground under all we experience and who we are. Just my take, from one of the possible points of view at the Information issue.
Humans have DNA as an information scheme and it really shouldn't bother anybody that this information scheme has a lot to do with your personality. It also shouldn't surprise that scientists might look for a more fundamental information scheme related to things like quarks and electrons. If spacetime has 8 dimensions (including Kaluza-Klein-like ones) and these dimensions are used as bits to produce degrees of freedom for handling the spinor components of quarks and electrons, that shouldn't bother anybody. If this same Clifford algebra symmetry is used by the the 2^8=256 rules of elementary cellular automata that should not bother anybody. You can do fun things like use those quaint little Wolfram rule pictures as icons for spinor components. Ark knows that usually when I say something physics related, it is related to the model of Tony Smith and that would be the case here. It's useful to have your ideas sourced to scientists (like who would you cite if you wrote a paper). You don't obviously have to agree with everything written by your sources, Tony has different variations of his model and I only like one of them.
ReplyDelete"At some point I was very excited about this approach, where Finkelstein started with "At the beginning there was a Word". The idea is, more or less, that the Universe is resembling something similar to the Matrix in the movie, a computer game running by some algorithm. Which leaves, however, unanswered th question: where is the Programmer who selects the algorithm to be run."
ReplyDeleteHave you read this paper? I thought it was fun: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/867
He argues that reality is better conceived as a "self"-simulation, similar to Wheeler's idea. I'm not qualified to judge the results, but he tries to incorporate consciousness, the programmer, free will, and a bunch of other stuff.
Thank you for this link. And there I see more links to his papers:
DeleteLangan, C. M. (2002). The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of
Reality Theory. Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, 1, 2-3. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/537a/c9c6066f20039491a72b361a4009a3
d5623f.pdf
Langan, C. M. (2017). An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics. Cosmos and History:
The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 13, 2. Retrieved from
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/618/1040
Langan, C. M. (2018). The Metaformal System: Completing the Theory of Language.
Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 13, 2. Retrieved from
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/618/1040
Langan, C. M. (2019). Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM). Cosmos and
History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 15, 2. Retrieved from
https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/788/14
Lot to read, and quite relevant. New for me. Thanks.
You're welcome, Ark! I hope there is some useful stuff in there for you. A lot of what he writes matches with my own intuitions and thinking about philosophy of science, but I don't know enough formal logic or math to judge. (Langan was featured in one of Malcolm Gladwell's books, "Outliers". He has a very high IQ, about 200, but has never been in academia.)
Delete