Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

I have put down a few thoughts on how we can start to see physics as an interface to underlying "structure". "Structure" is posed without its normal qualifier "Causal" and it will become more clear why I am doing this if you read the paper.
In the paper, I try to paint a picture that our interface to systems is modelled by the internal QFT which Vicary paints in his quantum harmonic oscillator. The internal comonads are taken as classical systems. The innovation is to understand the truly epistemic quality of this. We use the internal comonoids (classical structures of knobs and buttons and lights) to probe underlying structure. Furthermore, we build theories in the category of internal comonoids, which Vicary states is much like SET and thus suitable for probing arbitrary categories. Does anyone else see that the work by Spekkens in deriving quantum mechanics from an epistemic restriction has to be categorified if we want to use it in a theory of quantum gravity (relational, causal)? Also, does any one sympathise with the use of internal categories in a monoidal category as a "place" to build structured theories directly from interacting with aparata?

share|improve this question
2  
Unfortunately, a few question marks does not a question make. This is just an attempt to push your personal theory. It's not even a theory of physics. This is philosophy. – Colin K Nov 1 '12 at 2:47
1  
I agree with Colin you have to be very very careful precise when you pose questions. – Prathyush Nov 1 '12 at 4:08
3  
I flagged this as "Not a real question." If you move some of the content from Dropbox into this question, then it might be an actual question. But then it might be off-topic or not constructive. – Colin McFaul Nov 1 '12 at 4:27
I realize I am pushing the line here, but lets just see where this goes. – Ben Sprott Nov 1 '12 at 16:36

closed as not a real question by Colin K, anna v, David Zaslavsky♦ Nov 1 '12 at 17:21

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.