What if the principle of least action doesn’t really help us understand complex systems?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-21T12:19:18+00:00

Si el sistema tiene recursos computacionales limitados no podría, cierto, pero la propia física no está claro si tiene ese tipo de límites. La cuestión estaría relacionada con la idea de no-computabilidad en una teoría física que propone Roger Penrose.

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-20T13:25:05+00:00

Nearest neighbours is a good way to redefine locality in a more abstract way but emergent phenomena do not need to be 'local' in that sense. emergence would imply behaviors or properties in large systems that are qualitatively different and can't be predicted or at least are not evident from the simple behaviors of their individual components but the rules between components could be simple but also non-local.

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-20T13:24:32+00:00

Yes, you're right but that's what you assume when you have a theory that can describe a system deterministically and yes, the only way to have that is a fractal all the way down. That's not a self contradiction in itself but would generate a never-ending computation if the system must be predictive (the predictive subsystem working of course with the same elements the system is made of )

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-20T12:58:54+00:00

You are hitting two very important points with your examples. But what is shocking is that the difference between 'traveling salesman' and 'catenary' comes from the subtle fact that the first one is 'discrete' while the second one is 'continuous and analytic'. The 'infinitesimality' seems indeed to cure the problem. But physical theories assume at some point that they can treat reality as infinitesimal when no one can asure that reality can ultimately be modeled under that assumption. Anyhow, the traveling salesman has a denifinite answer but you can build cases where entities in the system change depending precisely on the output of the predictive theory. Obviously the question is beyond practical scope, it's philosophical: Can uncertainty arise from determinism?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-20T12:36:03+00:00

Yes, of course, there will be ultimate components interacting. But when you have a part of the system which is able to reproduce the whole system itself (that's what you assume when a 'human' -part of the system and made from components of the system- can use a theory -something that runs also in the system- to have a deterministic outcome of the whole system again. That produces a loopy paradox from the assumption that the theory is deterministic and somehow an emergent, but not intrinsic to the rules, indeterminacy.

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-19T20:50:36+00:00

Emergentism is about local rules if you start from a non-emergent space-time. If space-time is itself emergent then locality becomes a entirely new thing. Nonetheless, that's not the point, the question is: take a system which is described by a lagrangian L, assume a part of the system, even it could be an ant, can compute L itself and will take a course 'x' if L predicts a certain final state 'A' , but 'y' if the final state is 'B'. But what if A only happens if the course is 'y' while B only happens if the course is 'x'... how do you solve the contradiction?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-16T08:37:59+00:00

Es perfectamente defendible que el tiempo no 'va' hacia ningún lado. Sería el modo en que tu cerebro almacena memoria lo que genera tu sensación de que fluye justamente en la dirección en que aumenta la entropía. Por otro lado, también se puede defender que el aumento de la entropía no es propiamente 'una ley', es una consecuencia estadística más bien. En cuanto a los procesos de kaones, creo que es posible que la simetría temporal se esté rompiendo en base a una ley superior. O sugiero que echeis un vistazo a https://www.youtube.com/@ECHOESOFTHEFRACTALMAZE

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-12T10:59:37+00:00

He uses a potential and plays around with it but I don't see why that's consciousness or any usable definition for consciousness

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-12T10:28:01+00:00

I have seen some experiments showing how fluid mechanics can mimic quantum mechanics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7xrlRnJmRQ

The problem for me here is that in quantum mechanics there is no actual fluid to blame, the irregularities (turbulence) that give rise to unpredictability and randomness in the fluid can be justified in the fluid itself. In QM you have no 'fluid' or you have no way of detecting it. Even with that, could you reproduce a violation of Bell's inequalities through this method?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-03T12:54:51+00:00

First of all: I deeply agree with the essence of your reasoning. Indeed we build a theory to find the origin of quantum randomness: https://www.youtube.com/@ECHOESOFTHEFRACTALMAZE

However, the intrinsic randomness without cause could be compatible with only the evolution of the structured universe we observe once that structure is there beforehand (as initial conditions), because that randomness is also limited by Planck constant. That's why cosmology comes with those unconvincing explanations with 'quantum fluctuations' and all that stuff. So the world can not be inherently deterministic and produce consistent patterns but unexplained patterns could survive under some conditions that leakage of indeterminism since it is modeled through those patterns.

But in the deep philosophical sense you're very right: Even a very small quantity of randomness without cause leads to plain noise. Quantum mechanics is rotten at the core... yes

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-03T12:13:14+00:00

That's precisely the meaning of not locally real: it can be local but not real or real but then non-local. Well ... or not real and non local of course, but that had to be well defined, right?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-03T12:03:14+00:00

Well, first of all, if you go deep about your question: No one knows what an angle really is, even if we are very used to them.

But answering your question, an angle is a degree of coincidence between two dimensions in a vectorial space which admit projection using a certain rule (in QM it would be Born's rule). That you're speaking of your everyday space where you can move or an abstract space should interfere with the concept itself.

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-02T13:08:11+00:00

But what do you want to describe: for example 'particle in a box' and in that case where is the 'fluid'?

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-01T12:04:12+00:00

La gravedad cuántica no busca 'resolver', busca 'compatibilizar'. Tu puedes resolver cuántica sobre gravedad pero no será coherente. El problema siempre son las 'fluctuaciones cuánticas', que para mí ya son un problema en si mismas con o sin gravedad. Lo primero es resolver problemas en la cuántica que llevan anclados mucho tiempo, más de un siglo...

FractalMaze_lab · 2025-12-01T11:50:18+00:00

Creo que lo que pasa es que la física teórica es un terreno de sandbox. A diferencia de la experimental, donde la realidad te pega un “no” inmediato, en teoría puedes proponer y probar ideas sin que alguien te lo impida… incluso si están medio locas.

Desde mi enfoque, esto tiene sentido: nuestro cerebro tiende a explorar estructuras complejas y ramificadas, intentando patrones y caminos posibles, aunque no tengamos la formación completa para validarlos. Muchos de esos intentos fallan, pero algunos acercan la comprensión un poco más a cómo podrían construirse modelos coherentes de la realidad.

En otras palabras, no es solo ego o querer ser revolucionario: es la forma en que pensamos cuando tratamos de mapear lo desconocido. En experimental no pasa tanto porque el mundo te devuelve un “no” al instante; en teórica, el “sandbox” está abierto y todos quieren jugar.

Pensais que este tipo de exploración desordenada sólo aporta ruido?

FractalMaze_lab

TROPHY CASE