Perspectival objectivity

0:00 Here's a proposed definition of what it is for system-to-care information. Come to know the state. So you're basically saying... Otherwise you've just got a physical correlation, that's not information. Okay, fine. So I'm happy to say, well, let's call... Just putting this down, why don't we just call it structure? I mean, sure, structure. But now it seems, which is the way to go? How are correlations... Tell me, what are the correlations that makes it different from other kinds of structure?

2:30 Well, imagine a system whose kernel state... You can say, well, the precondition to us agreeing on it is the fact that there is a little twist there, and that, you know, one of the things that Bob and I were proposing to work on was to actually incorporate the observer.

5:00 The problem with the quantum Darwinism model is it doesn't, at the end of the day, tell you about how observers come to know of it. It doesn't help ensure that that's really true.

7:30 That may attribute objectivity to the properties of a lot of copies. It doesn't make it more important. It increases your risk of being sued. I want to change the top question I already asked of. Expound further on between S and R. And so what you have to do is you have to find the virtual subsystem, that bit in Hilbert space that describes the relations between S and R. And you don't do that by tracing over R. You do that by tracing over the collective degree of quantum state of S in the aim of trying to get around the impression that high energy or talk to a biologist or political scientist and you don't get this attitude at all. And indeed you...

17:30 I gather you talk to somebody doing the physics of bulk matter you don't. So the comment is just to put this in highlight that this is an attitude that seemed integral to what we're describing and raise the question about what our attitude towards that attitude is. Even as we want to use scale. So even for Modell's theory that I've talked about, electroweak unification scale.

20:00 We are today in a situation which, let's say, where experimental findings are, if not completely unrealistic, like for the Planck scale, like is the case for the Planck scale, so we aren't today anywhere near the Planck scale, we're near the electroweak scale, but it is terribly difficult if you look at the details of what is going on. To actually tell evidence for one model from evidence for another model, whatever you find there, and you just find resonances at such energies, and you try to study this, you know, whatever these resonances are, some properties, it is extremely difficult to actually tell for which of the models your evidence may stand. And people are quite conscious of this. Particle physicists working at 1PV or do have, well at least this is my experience of, do have the hope of finding the correct extension of the standard modal for the next angio level compared to their modals in the way we... So because they know that evidence will be hard to interpret,

22:30 Or better, impossible to interpret as standing almost all kinds of evidence that may appear, will be standing, will be speaking for several different modals at the same time. They are ready to live. But this is a pluralism of modals, not of theories. If you look at their attitude, they keep, I think, believe that there is the correct theory behind it. I think they're happy to be in this world where there are a lot of contradictions at the level of models and also models and data and we can live with phenomenological tension, but they're not happy living in the world where the conceptual apparatus is not finally correct at the end of the day. At some point in your talk, you compared the effect of what's going on there to the S-matrix program, and so just that, well, by inviting your comment, I mean, Jim Cushing, because his general picture there, so you have this ebb and flow of different doing science, so at some point, the most promising one was the S-matrix program, because before then, it wasn't possible to do, you know, the S-matrix program ran into problems, and so now... Field theory program reigns again, but Cushing doesn't describe it. Here's the linear progress. You'll read structures. The other. So this is much more along this line. We don't find the correct theory. Yeah, I wasn't trying to also say that there is a linear approach. I'm happy with this view. So we're using this pragmatic approach. Then one day we have... So now the pragmatic approach...

25:00 Put the masses in a slightly different range and so forth. So, in that sense, one would say these are different theories. They all have the same canonical framework.

27:30 Well, do you agree with that? Is that...? Well, that's not the language I would like to use, but that's certainly the language a lot of people use when they call theory something else. Yeah, they say, this is QFT number one, this is QFT number two, it has different log-ranges, so it's not a quantifiable theory. But when I say theory in this context, in the context of this debate, a theory... ...is what you just called conceptual framework. Right, so, and then, so, yeah, so it's a conceptual apparatus. Okay, but model equals... Extra dimensions and things like this, then you have to have, but once you are within a... Would it be helpful to get a better sense of just... There is a big, yeah, I mean, here I'm feeling a bit on a shaky sort of ground because I'm not a specialist in the theory model debate, but there has been, so the, one of the references... The regard to this debate is coincidental on EFT, on effective field theory, where he at length discusses theory versus modal distinction in the case of effective field theory. And I feel a conceptual crueler... Well, I mean, there's fire oven to answer.

30:00 So starting with tomorrow, sessions will be in another night's room. You do not have to cross the courtyard, so you still enter with the same entrance at 25, and then you go down the stairs, the little stairs, and you turn left almost immediately. So you don't cross the B courtyard. And there will be signs for tomorrow. So let's see, so several of tomorrow's speakers have asked particularly if you can confirm that there are definitely, there's definitely an overhead projector in the other, hand projector. Yes, yes, all the, all the equipment will be available, so no worries about equipment. Okay, fine. Just do the cooking would have been one person. He's a lot more radical than I am. He's a much more explore than I am. I don't want to see morality at all. I just want you to be part of the world. Part of the world. Part of the world. Part of the world. Part of the world. Well, he said it was one answer. And I said I loved that answer. Please tell me exactly what kind of phrase I read in the paper, and I'll be happy to explain it to you again in the future. Thank you very much, and I hope to see you again in the future. Thank you very much, and I hope to see you again in the future.

32:30 Oh, that's okay, sorry, sorry. Can we just have a look at this? Absolutely. You're kicking off. Yeah. Are you looking for us tomorrow? You're the last speaker tomorrow afternoon. By the way, sir, Simon, sorry, has Guido told you? Okay.