[extropy-chat] triangles

scerir scerir at libero.it
Tue Oct 25 16:46:57 UTC 2005

'On Math, Matter and Mind'
Authors: Piet Hut. Mark Alford, Max Tegmark
'We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's
math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the
widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of
matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists
should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular
resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical
physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists
believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a
complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details. Others
suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever
capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached
arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on
completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches as
the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by
practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which
arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations of
physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more
useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to
tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.'


I've got the vague impression that the paper
above has to do with the triangle, the circularity,
the entanglement of entanglements discussed by the
two papers below ....

-Günther Krenn, -Anton Zeilinger,
'Entangled Entanglement'
in: Phys.Rev.A 54 1793-1797 (1996).
'In entangled systems values cannot be assigned to all quantum
mechanical observables of individual members of the system independent
of the measurement context of the whole system. While various cases
are known where properties like spin, momentum, energyetc. can be
entangled, entanglement itself is usually considered to bean objective
property of the system. We show that situations can arise where this
is no longer the case and where therefore entanglement itself
becomes an entangled property.'

-P.K. Aravind,
'Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state',
in 'Quantum Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance:
Essays for Abner Shimony', eds. R. S. Cohen, M. Horne and
J. Stachel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 53-59.


.... not to mention here these two links,
one about some planar triangles http://www.planarity.net/
the other about some fuzzy Planckian triangulations,
-R. Loll, -J. Ambjorn, -J. Jurkiewicz
'The Universe from Scratch'
'A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one
could probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the
19th-century founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that a
piece of empty space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the
naked eye might have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale.
Our vastly increased understanding of the physical world acquired during the
20th century has made this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us
that looking at spacetime at ever smaller scales requires ever larger
energies, and, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, this
will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure in the form of
"curvature". What we still lack is a definitive Theory of Quantum Gravity to
give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved and
quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale. -
This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory,
that of Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in
deriving from first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the tiniest
realms of the quantum to the large-scale structure of the universe.'

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list