[Philip. 5/15/14 12:37pm]
I don’t plan on publishing it. I plan on giving it to you, which I already have. Believe it or not, it literally took me 3 years of work to write those measley 10 pages. Of course, I only knew about William Powers for half the time. But in those 3 years, I have studied every single subject in existence. It was an inhuman endeavor and its done.Â
Now, I want to give you some additional reasoning about why I think we should merge PCT with quantum mechanics. The “many-worlds interpretation� is a currently mainstream explanation of quantum mechanics which denies the actuality of wave function collapse. The wave function collapse is the essence of measurement in quantum mechanics, which lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and for which there is currently no consensus. Now, when the “many-interpretation� is applied to human behavior, this theory essentially asserts the following: whenever anyone makes a decision, that person doesn’t actually choose one option over another, but instead does them both - in slightly different versions of reality. Thus, in one universe, a pitcher throws a fastball; in another universe, he throws a curve ball. Now, in the perceptual control system architecture, we know that decisions do not control actions - they control perceptions. Thus, a pitcher chooses to throw a fastball or a curveball to control perceptions. Already I see that the fundamental precept of this powerful theory is in conflict with prevalent interpretations of how quantum mechanists view behavior.
For instance, in one of these multi-verses, a catcher is trying to catch a fly ball. Now, even the world-class physicists of today are of the opinion that a catcher would take
a quick look at the ball and predict, from its location and velocity, exactly where to run
in order to be there just in time to catch it. But alas, they must admit that the unexpected
gust of wind will foil the prediction. However, unlike these physicists, we know the purpose of the out�elder’s behavior as he/she is catching the ball. We perceptual controllers know to ask: what controlled perceptual variable would result in the �elder always moving to the spot where the ball lands? As a result, we are able to discover the truly deterministic result of behavior. In PCT, systems are input controllers. No other field of science even knows what an input controller is; they think it’s a “play on words�. Foolish imbeciles!
Now, the explanatory power of PCT derives mainly from the existence of the hidden
reference variable. In quantum physics, hidden variable theories were forwarded because it was argued that the description of the quantum state was essentially incomplete. Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, argued that “elements of reality� (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement and action at a distance. So look, the last chapter of Powers’ B:CoP is about conflict. Conflict occurs when two control systems try to keep the same perception at two different reference values; one might posit that these behaviors are entangled. Quantum entanglement is the physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently. I’ve read through a couple quantum mechanics books and I hypothesize that the concepts of conflict and entanglement go together like two peas in a pod.
There’s more: in LCS III, Powers describes the control system attached to a mass
and spring (the quintessential harmonic oscillator of quantum mechanics). His model
exhibits very interesting behavior, which he intuitively describes as not following any logic or reason other than input control. The two-level system he described controls the position and velocity (interestingly, the quantities of Heisenberg Uncertainty). I don’t see anything wrong with incorporating a third level (above position) controlling frequency. The reason I mention this is because if we take a look at atoms (not fundamental particles but entire atoms) it seems they naturally exhibit some type of input control due to their quantization - they will only absorb discrete quantities of electromagnetic energy, related to the frequency of applied radiation. Of course, this applies to their output as well.
Finally, I’ve surveyed almost the entire field of modern mathematics and I find that one of the most interesting things discovered in the past centuries (and which forms the basis of much of almost all fundamental particle theories in quantum mechanics) is the concept of a “groupâ€?. A group is a set of quantities which exists under the condition of “closureâ€?, whereby an operation applied to any member of the group will still be another member of the group. For instance, “the set of all angles a circle can be rotated throughâ€? forms a group – specifically a “symmetry groupâ€?. Perhaps we shall come to appreciate the natural complementarity between perceptual control and symmetry. The mathematicians working with these symmetry groups have built powerful concepts of what are known as “representationsâ€?. I noticed a few questions about the meaning of “representationsâ€? floating around in the forum recently. The answer is here, and its pure math.
I hope everyone here is willing to help me with this.Â