Fra
- 4,441
- 739
Quick reflection on the book looking at chapter 12.
Peres writings is very good, I like them, but the "sharpness" still rests on a few concepts that conceptually take the "role" of the heisenberg cut, some of the keys are
"Consistency thus requires the measuring process to be irreversible. There are no superobservers
in our physical world."
Peres, p366
This is course makes perfect sense, but I have a critical reflections
The notion of "reversibility" is plauged by the similar thing such as "randomness". While all someone can say is that: I have not means to predict, or i have not means to "control" and reverse, so the process I can observer seems "random" and "irreversible". Thus these concepts are dependent on the "capacity" of the "observing part". And its why it requires, there are no superobservers. But there are still observers of vastly different "capacity" to distinguish, encode and process their empirically accessible information. So the question of a scale independent notion of reversibility and timeless law is still fuzzy.
So the question of how the apparenty dynamical law, evolves with complexity here, is not sharpy addressed at all. But I think Peres is doing a decent job to be as sharp as possible.
/Fredrik
Peres writings is very good, I like them, but the "sharpness" still rests on a few concepts that conceptually take the "role" of the heisenberg cut, some of the keys are
"Consistency thus requires the measuring process to be irreversible. There are no superobservers
in our physical world."
Peres, p366
This is course makes perfect sense, but I have a critical reflections
The notion of "reversibility" is plauged by the similar thing such as "randomness". While all someone can say is that: I have not means to predict, or i have not means to "control" and reverse, so the process I can observer seems "random" and "irreversible". Thus these concepts are dependent on the "capacity" of the "observing part". And its why it requires, there are no superobservers. But there are still observers of vastly different "capacity" to distinguish, encode and process their empirically accessible information. So the question of a scale independent notion of reversibility and timeless law is still fuzzy.
So the question of how the apparenty dynamical law, evolves with complexity here, is not sharpy addressed at all. But I think Peres is doing a decent job to be as sharp as possible.
/Fredrik