Causal closure (Chinese text)

quantum basis here means "quantum foundations"

This is part of a philosophical debate on physical causal closure = 因果的封闭性

but is it physics a closed axiomatic or a closed tree-like axiomatic or Max Tegmark's computational or David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto's closed cosmological constructor?

WE SHOULD RESPECT THE PHYSICISTS!

Physics takes time to evolve. We shouldn't force simple solutions from our heads.

//////////////////////////

We should respect the physicists! We cannot distort physics, and we need time to understand it... many more experiments.

Causal closure is present simplistically by the philosophers.

This is a comment to philosophers who don't know physics and want the universe to be easy without realistic physical axiomatic prerequisites WHICH IN REALITY HAVE COMPLICATED IMPLICATIONS!!!

\_\_\_\_\_\_

因果的封闭性

维基百科，自由的百科全书

跳到导航跳到搜索

哲学中的因果闭合违反了科学；它不包括量子抖动

在真正的物理学中，我们并没有暗能量的完整定义。宇宙在膨胀。这也可以被认为是宇宙的公理表达，因为它的公理=量子基础，软件=定律和硬件=粒子不能分开。我们不能使用简单化的乐高砖逻辑。

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-this-universe-new-calculation-suggests-our-cosmos-is-typical-20221117/

见：axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations

对于物理学的公理基础，我们还没有答案。我们必须把暗能量分析为宇宙本身成分的量子退相干。当然，一切都是合乎逻辑的，但这并不意味着死去的哲学家们知道未来的物理学。把物理学介绍错了是很幼稚的。阅读Quanta杂志的文章。即使在今天我们也知道，简单的哲学思想不是物理学。你不能拒绝物理学和想象简单的东西，这是错的。如果你拒绝科学，你就是一个糟糕的哲学家。你对事实是盲目的!
卡尔-波普尔声称一切事物都有一个逻辑程序是正确的，但当他声称你可以不经过严格的努力就能想象出确切的程序时，他就是愚蠢之王。你不仅要接受逻辑，而且要应用它。物理学不是数学的同义词。物理学和数学是由逻辑学衔接起来的。但物理学有不同的自因性和一致性的公理先决条件。有些人研究物理学基础的公理先决条件。物理学的基础是复杂的，有深远的影响。物理现象是基于逻辑程序和更深层次的因果联系。

\_\_\_\_\_

## 必须提到许多循环宇宙学理论

```
**反对哲学中简单版本的因果封闭性**

```

量子基础不是大爆炸的同义词。大爆炸是一个非常重大的宇宙学事件，服从于物理学规律。无数个不同的物理学和宇宙在逻辑上是可能的。一些人研究物理基础的公理前提，可以使用马克斯-泰格马克和大卫-多伊奇的构造者理论的可计算性。多伊奇的构造者理论可以创建一个比简单公理系统更复杂的公理树。宇宙的自洽性在物理主义中是必要的。许多有神论者谈到了至少一个人格的自因性，但如果没有产生人格的计算机=大脑，人格是不可能的。大脑不一定是生物的。大脑有记忆储存和数据处理中心。因此，产生人格的计算机不是一个公理；它需要空间来存在，需要时间来进行计算。空间-时间比产生人格的计算机更基本。

但现代物理学并没有所有的答案。物理学可能是一个开放的公理系统，在一棵相关宇宙的树上。如果物理学有无限多的非琐碎的公理，那么我们就永远不会用有限的材料写出终极的无限理论。物理学不一定要成为一个封闭的公理系统。它是完全合乎逻辑的，但它不一定是简单的。实验数学可以帮助我们建立许多不同的公理系统。超自然现象是不可能的，因为它是通过反科学和模糊的经验主义来描述的，但没有对其基础进行任何公理分析。超自然现象没有具体的本体论基础，因此它不可能存在。然而，物理学仍然不一定是一个简单的过程。物理学必须管理公理系统不可避免的问题（不完全性、不一致性和不可计算性；它们不能同时避免），通过自我互动、算法公理的生成，以及通过物理和信息熵的逻辑机制，自我互动公理、管理数据，甚至删除数据的过程。

物理学需要一个复杂的分层： 1. 要有基于逻辑可能性本身的自因（从逻辑公理创造宇宙；而不是从纯粹和永久不存在的虚无创造宇宙），2.管理公理系统的问题。(公理管理，自我互动；通过算法程序的计算自我进化，以及互动程序的底层网络；因为我们不能把物理规律与粒子分开，做简单化的描述)。现在人类不知道根据量子场理论描述大爆炸前普朗克退化状态的数学公式是什么，也不知道黑洞事件视界后面最退化的环中有什么。只有愚蠢之王才会声称，关于因果闭合的哲学辩论可以在没有数学、观察和实验的情况下解决物理学问题。你不能用愚蠢来强迫一个答案。这不是科学的工作方式。另外，数学不是物理学的同义词。物理学有不同的公理预设。你不能用数学来宣称科学只关于我们的宇宙，因为那样你就自相矛盾了。数学是一个公理系统，用作证明的工具。数学的基础永远不会在逻辑上变得完整，因为那是不可能的。即使是物理学，如果没有不同宇宙的公理树，也毫无意义。许多公理系统是开放的。封闭的公理系统面临不一致的问题。你不能把简单性强加于人。物理学是困难的。愚蠢的想法会被后人嘲笑。试着做个聪明人。避免愚蠢。

### simplistic translation in English with mistakes

```
Against the simple version of causal closure in philosophy

```

The quantum basis is not synonymous with the big bang. The Big Bang is a very unimportant cosmological event that obeys the laws of physics. An infinite number of different physics and universes are logically possible. Some people studying the axiomatic premises of the physical foundations can use the computability of Max Tegmark's and David Deutsch's constructor theories. Deutsch's constructor theory can create an axiomatic tree that is more complex than a simple axiomatic system. Self-consistency of the universe is necessary in physicalism. Many theists talk about the self-causality of at least one personality, but personality is not possible without a computer = brain that produces it. The brain does not have to be biological. The brain has memory storage and data processing centers. Therefore, a personality-generating computer is not an axiom; it needs space to exist and time to perform calculations. Space-time is more fundamental than the computer from which personality arises. But modern physics does not have all the answers. Physics may be an open axiomatic system in a tree of related universes. If physics had an infinite number of non-trivial axioms, then we would never write the ultimate infinite theory with finite material. Physics is not necessarily a closed system of axioms. It is perfectly logical, but it is not necessarily simple. Experimental mathematics can help us create different axiomatic systems. The supernatural is impossible because it is described via antiscientific and vague empiricism, but without any axiomatic analysis of its foundations. The supernatural has no specific ontological foundations, thus it cannot exist. But physics still doesn't have to be a simple process. Physics has to be self-caused via self-interactions, algorithmic axiom generation and techniques to manage the inescapable problems of the axiomatic systems (incompleteness, inconsistency and incalculability; they cannot be all avoided in tandem). Physics requires an intricate stratification of complexity: 1. to be self-causal and 2. to manage the problems of the axiomatic systems (only to manage but without to avoid them; via algorithmic procedures or even computational self-evolution of the program itself; because we cannot separate the physical laws from the particles in the real life). Humanity nowadays doesn't know what is the mathematical formula according to quantum field theory to describe the state of Planck degeneracy before the Big Bang, and in the most degenerate torus behind a black hole's event horizon. Only the king of stupidity would claim that philosophical debates about causal closure can resolve physics, without mathematics, observations and experiments. You cannot force an answer by stupidity. Science doesn't work that way. Also mathematics isn't synonymous to physics. Physics has different axiomatic prerequisites. You cannot claim that science is only about our universe whilst you use mathematics, because that way you contradict yourself. Mathematics is an axiomatic system used as a tool for proofs. The foundations of mathematics will never become logically complete, because that is impossible. Not even physics makes sense without the axiomatic tree of different universes. Many axiomatic systems are open. Closed axiomatic systems face inconsistency problems. You cannot impose simplicity. Physics is difficult. Silly ideas will be mocked by future generations. Try to be intelligent. Avoid being stupid.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## 相关主题：维格纳的无限的朋友无限的系列

• 維格納的友人

主要的概念必须无限次地重复。

研究：哈伯體積

## related text from Quanta Magazine/ microstate counting

Turok and Boyle calculate the same entropy as Jacobson and Banihashemi for an empty universe. But in their new calculation pertaining to a realistic universe filled with matter and radiation, they get a much larger number of microstates — proportional to volume and not area. Faced with this apparent clash, they speculate that the different entropies answer different questions: The smaller de Sitter entropy counts microstates of pure space-time bounded by a horizon, while they suspect their larger entropy counts all the microstates of a space-time filled with matter and energy, both inside and outside the horizon. “It’s the whole shebang,” Turok said.

comment: We have to help physics evolve. Common language of archaic philosophy isn't enough to describe physics.

## 相关主题：维格纳的无限的朋友无限的系列

• 維格納的友人

主要的概念必须无限次地重复。

研究：哈伯體積

## 相关文字来自《Quanta Magazine》杂志/微状态计数

Turok和Boyle计算的熵与Jacobson和Banihashemi对空宇宙所做的相同。但在他们与充满物质和辐射的真实宇宙有关的新计算中，他们得到的微态数量要大得多--与体积而非面积成正比。面对这种明显的冲突，他们推测不同的熵回答了不同的问题：较小的德西特熵计算的是以地平线为界的纯时空的微态，而他们怀疑他们较大的熵计算的是充满物质和能量的时空的所有微态，包括在地平线内外。这就是全部，"图罗克说。

评论： 我们必须帮助物理学的发展。古代哲学的语言不足以描述物理学。

如果不了解量子基础，我们无法应用简单的数学，就像玩橘子一样。

## 为什么量子引力是不可归一化的？

```
**将微积分应用于过渡性量子场论相互作用以描述引力**

```

因为有人说，重力是一种短暂的现象。我们没有关于重力的场相互作用的分析理论。

### comment 1

About causal closure again

```
Applying calculus to transient quantum field theory interactions to describe gravity

```

为什么量子引力是不可归一化的？
因为有人说，重力是一种短暂的现象。我们没有关于重力的场相互作用的分析理论。

We don't have the analytical theory of gravity (not the curvature but the exact analytical interactions).

Roger Penrose's version was tested and it's wrong. He is and idealist focusing on general relativity which is an approximation and doesn't elaborate on the exact specific field mechanism of gravity impacting the exact particles.

Loop quantum gravity is wrong in its nowadays form.

\_\_\_\_\_

The transient view, requires emphasis on the calculus between energy state transitions and between complete spin swaps.

Thus quantum field theory combined with techniques of calculus are necessary, but that's insane,

Combine calculus techniques in transient phenomena of quantum field theory.

(You cannot have physical causal closure if you don't explicitly define gravity as a specific mechanism and not just as a generalization like general relativity.)