Marcel Fröhlich
@froehlichmarcel.bsky.social
Data Strategy, Building organizations building systems, Mathematics
Director Services @ eccenca
Chair OMG Enterprise Knowledge Graph Platform Task Force
https://sigmoid.social/@FroehlichMarcel
Imho a better definition should be based on selecting good questions, which is much harder. Problem solving tends to ignore that the chosen problem might be a based on a silly framing. Being able to navigate all the various dimensions of abstractions is a skill that provides clues for intelligence.
November 23, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Imho a better definition should be based on selecting good questions, which is much harder. Problem solving tends to ignore that the chosen problem might be a based on a silly framing. Being able to navigate all the various dimensions of abstractions is a skill that provides clues for intelligence.
Have you tried the ones that have a square diameter? Spaghetti alla chitarra
e.g. from Rummo, really great.
e.g. from Rummo, really great.
September 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Have you tried the ones that have a square diameter? Spaghetti alla chitarra
e.g. from Rummo, really great.
e.g. from Rummo, really great.
Yeah, unsatisfying, isn’t it.
August 1, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Yeah, unsatisfying, isn’t it.
Yes,they invent different stuff like eg particles. The functors will only work in one direction, not in both.
August 1, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Yes,they invent different stuff like eg particles. The functors will only work in one direction, not in both.
I doubt it, after thinking about it 😅
August 1, 2025 at 6:46 AM
I doubt it, after thinking about it 😅
germline group 😂
July 31, 2025 at 11:35 PM
germline group 😂
Ha, I just started listening to the new Mindscape podcast with Jacob Barandes. Couldn’t be more on point.
July 31, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Ha, I just started listening to the new Mindscape podcast with Jacob Barandes. Couldn’t be more on point.
According to the MWI interpretation actuality is just another word for "on your branch". There is no fundamental gap, it just feels weird and anti Occam's razor to postulate all this unobservable effects. But MWI people would argue that Occam's razor is about minimal theory assumptions.
July 31, 2025 at 5:30 PM
According to the MWI interpretation actuality is just another word for "on your branch". There is no fundamental gap, it just feels weird and anti Occam's razor to postulate all this unobservable effects. But MWI people would argue that Occam's razor is about minimal theory assumptions.
But it explains the probability of other things to happen relative to you (in your branch). It is not fundamentally different, it is primarily a more twisted way of looking at dynamics, as no other helpers are introduced. It is the same maths. Nobody questions that.
July 31, 2025 at 5:20 PM
But it explains the probability of other things to happen relative to you (in your branch). It is not fundamentally different, it is primarily a more twisted way of looking at dynamics, as no other helpers are introduced. It is the same maths. Nobody questions that.
Just it feels like pretty irrelevant to think about the other branches from that perspective. So you’d want to have some theory boilerplate like a modality that automatically picks your branch and does all the necessary book keeping.
July 31, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Just it feels like pretty irrelevant to think about the other branches from that perspective. So you’d want to have some theory boilerplate like a modality that automatically picks your branch and does all the necessary book keeping.
Well, it does. It is just a little more twisted to think about it. It is about probabilities on your branch.
July 31, 2025 at 4:47 PM
Well, it does. It is just a little more twisted to think about it. It is about probabilities on your branch.
David Wallace would likely argue that the MWI offers the ultimate explanation: the mathematics of quantum mechanics is enough. We don't need to add mysterious collapses or hidden entities. The insight is in understanding the physics of decoherence and the logic of decision-making under uncertainty.
July 31, 2025 at 4:28 PM
David Wallace would likely argue that the MWI offers the ultimate explanation: the mathematics of quantum mechanics is enough. We don't need to add mysterious collapses or hidden entities. The insight is in understanding the physics of decoherence and the logic of decision-making under uncertainty.
I think the insight from this line of thought is the following:
An interpretation is not just driven by consistency but also by the explanatory purpose. That's why MWI feels so awkward.
An interpretation is not just driven by consistency but also by the explanatory purpose. That's why MWI feels so awkward.
July 31, 2025 at 12:57 PM
I think the insight from this line of thought is the following:
An interpretation is not just driven by consistency but also by the explanatory purpose. That's why MWI feels so awkward.
An interpretation is not just driven by consistency but also by the explanatory purpose. That's why MWI feels so awkward.
On a second thought it is somewhat more complicated:
Even many worlds is not 1:1.
There is a choice of basis for the Hilbert space involved and a choice how to slice up the world into subsystems.
But other interpretations are clearly more complicated, adding new things like e.g. particle positions.
Even many worlds is not 1:1.
There is a choice of basis for the Hilbert space involved and a choice how to slice up the world into subsystems.
But other interpretations are clearly more complicated, adding new things like e.g. particle positions.
July 31, 2025 at 12:49 PM
On a second thought it is somewhat more complicated:
Even many worlds is not 1:1.
There is a choice of basis for the Hilbert space involved and a choice how to slice up the world into subsystems.
But other interpretations are clearly more complicated, adding new things like e.g. particle positions.
Even many worlds is not 1:1.
There is a choice of basis for the Hilbert space involved and a choice how to slice up the world into subsystems.
But other interpretations are clearly more complicated, adding new things like e.g. particle positions.
Hence 1:1, the maths taken at face value is the reality.
July 31, 2025 at 11:09 AM
Hence 1:1, the maths taken at face value is the reality.
I mean the whole discussion about interpretations seems to be along the lines to defend them AGAINST other interpretations.
I am not at all in favor of many worlds. But it takes the most radical shortcut in terms of interpretation. It basically says that no further interpretation is required.
I am not at all in favor of many worlds. But it takes the most radical shortcut in terms of interpretation. It basically says that no further interpretation is required.
July 31, 2025 at 11:05 AM
I mean the whole discussion about interpretations seems to be along the lines to defend them AGAINST other interpretations.
I am not at all in favor of many worlds. But it takes the most radical shortcut in terms of interpretation. It basically says that no further interpretation is required.
I am not at all in favor of many worlds. But it takes the most radical shortcut in terms of interpretation. It basically says that no further interpretation is required.
It is not my opinion that there is the one ultimate interpretation. My opinion is that we can also take a formal approach to comparing them, by formalizing the interpretations themselves. Imho this is possible and will provide more clarity.
Many worlds is the 1:1 approach, the others are not.
Many worlds is the 1:1 approach, the others are not.
July 31, 2025 at 10:26 AM
It is not my opinion that there is the one ultimate interpretation. My opinion is that we can also take a formal approach to comparing them, by formalizing the interpretations themselves. Imho this is possible and will provide more clarity.
Many worlds is the 1:1 approach, the others are not.
Many worlds is the 1:1 approach, the others are not.
It might me helpful to formally describe the interpretations themselves as categories. The objects will be different, the morphisms will be different, the boundary of scope might be different.
And then it should be insightful to think about the functors to the category of Hilbert spaces for each.
And then it should be insightful to think about the functors to the category of Hilbert spaces for each.
July 31, 2025 at 9:57 AM
It might me helpful to formally describe the interpretations themselves as categories. The objects will be different, the morphisms will be different, the boundary of scope might be different.
And then it should be insightful to think about the functors to the category of Hilbert spaces for each.
And then it should be insightful to think about the functors to the category of Hilbert spaces for each.
Disagree. I believe the typical position is that one interpretation is correct and the others are not correct.
July 31, 2025 at 6:41 AM
Disagree. I believe the typical position is that one interpretation is correct and the others are not correct.
Maybe the insight is that all interpretations are in a homotopy sense the same. The math providing to path from one to the other.
July 30, 2025 at 11:46 PM
Maybe the insight is that all interpretations are in a homotopy sense the same. The math providing to path from one to the other.
Exactly. China and Chinese bigtech are doing admittedly much smarter moves with all the strategic investment in mathematics expertise - take a look at the initiatives of Huawei for example.
I wish Europe could get their act together re universities in this field & setting the stage for risk capital.
I wish Europe could get their act together re universities in this field & setting the stage for risk capital.
July 29, 2025 at 7:21 AM
Exactly. China and Chinese bigtech are doing admittedly much smarter moves with all the strategic investment in mathematics expertise - take a look at the initiatives of Huawei for example.
I wish Europe could get their act together re universities in this field & setting the stage for risk capital.
I wish Europe could get their act together re universities in this field & setting the stage for risk capital.
Device independent physics, discarding all assumptions about the underlying systems, is literally meta-physics - studying the rules of the game.
July 24, 2025 at 6:44 AM
Device independent physics, discarding all assumptions about the underlying systems, is literally meta-physics - studying the rules of the game.
Physics and the hyperreal LOL arxiv.org/abs/1512.01035
How device-independent approaches change the meaning of physical theory
Dirac sought an interpretation of mathematical formalism in terms of physical entities and Einstein insisted that physics should describe "the real states of the real systems". While Bell inequalities...
arxiv.org
July 23, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Physics and the hyperreal LOL arxiv.org/abs/1512.01035