Lots of interesting ideas going about.
It sounds like you're pondering how many elements are in the set of all
world-lines consistent with the true laws of physics (e.g., possibly, the
least action principle). (Incidentally, that set oddly enough is timeless
yet the "bundles" of world-lines that comprise our selves evidently
Proof by throwing in an axiom isn't very satisfying but I would like to say
that Banach-Tarski is no more strange than Gabriel's Horn or Cantor's
hierarchy of infinities. Strangeness is of course a matter of opinion and
mine is that the existence of nonmeasurable sets is not a heavy price to
pay for that poof (a proof by throwing in an axiom).
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
> [SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
> it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the "block
> universe" idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
> Why is a pre-existing field so troublesome? Seems like a similar problem
> as the one you have with Platonia. For any system featuring time or change,
> you can find a meta-system in which you can describe that system timelessly
> (and you have to, if one is to talk about time and change at all).
> Dear Kermit,
> OK, I will try to explain this in detail and check my math. I am good
> with pictures, even N-dimensional ones, but not symbols, equations and
> Think of a collection of different objects. Now think of how many ways
> that they can be arranged or partitioned up. For N objects, I believe that
> there are at least N! numbers of ways that they can be arranged.
> Now think of an Electromagnetic Field as we do in classical physics. At
> each point in space, it has a vector and a scalar value representing its
> magnetic and electric potentials. How many ways can this field be
> configured in terms of the possible values of the potentials at each point?
> At least 1x2x3x...xM ways, where M is the number of points of space. Let's
> add a dimension of time so that we have a 3,1 dimensional field
> configuration. How many different ways can this be configured? Well, that
> depends. We known that in Nature there is something called the Least Action
> Principle that basically states that what ever happens in a situation it is
> the one that minimizes the action. Water flows down hill for this reason,
> among other things... But it is still at least M! number of possible
> How do we compute what the minimum action configuration of the
> electromagnetic fields distributed across space-time? It is an optimization
> problem of figuring out which is the least action configured field given a
> choice of all possible field configurations. This computational problem is
> known to be NP-Complete and as such requires a quantity of resources to run
> the computation that increases as a non-polynomial power of the number of
> possible choices, so the number is, I think, 2^M! .
> The easiest to understand example of this kind of problem is the Traveling
> Salesman problem<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem>:
> "Given a list of cities and their pairwise distances, the task is to find
> the shortest possible route that visits each city exactly once. " The
> number of possible routes that the salesman can take increases
> exponentially with the number of cities, there for the number of possible
> distances that have to be compared to each other to find the shortest route
> increases at least exponentially. So for a computer running a program to
> find the solution it takes exponentially more resources of memory and time
> (in computational steps) or some combination of the two.
> Now, given all of that, in the concept of Platonia we have the idea of
> "ideal forms", be they "the Good", or some particular infinite string of
> numbers. How exactly are they determined to be the "best possible by some
> standard". Whatever the standard, all that matters is that there are
> multiple possible options of The Forms with the stipulation that it is "the
> best" or "most consistent" or whatever. It is still an optimization problem
> with N variables that are required to be compared to each other according
> to some standard. Therefore, in most cases there is an Np-complete problem
> to be solved. How can it be computed if it has to exist as perfect "from
> the beginning"?
> I figured this out when I was trying to wrap my head around Leindniz'
> idea of a "Pre-Established Harmony". It was supposed to have been created
> by God to synchronize all of the Monads with each other so that they
> appeared to interact with each other without actually "having to exchange
> substances" - which was forbidden to happen as Monads "have no windows".
> For God to have created such a PEH, it would have to solve an NP-Complete
> problem on the configuration space of all possible worlds. If the number of
> possible worlds is infinite then the computation will require infinite
> computational resources. Given that God has to have the solution "before"
> the Universe is created, It cannot use the time component of "God's
> Ultimate Digital computer". Since there is no space full of distinguishable
> stuff, there isn't any memory resources either for the computation. So
> guess what? The PEH cannot be computed and thus the universe cannot be
> created with a PEH as Leibniz proposed.
> The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
> talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his
> hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be performed to "find"
> it. I do not blame him as this problem has been glossed over for hundred of
> years in math and thus we have to play with nonsense like the Axiom of
> Choice (or Zorn's Lemma) to "prove" that a solution exists, never-mind
> trying to actually find the solution. This so called 'proof" come at a very
> steep price, it allows for all kinds of
> A possible solution to this problem, proposed by many even back as far
> as Heraclitus, is to avoid the requirement of a solution at the beginning.
> Just let the universe compute its least action configuration as it evolves
> in time, but to accept this possibility we have to overturn many preciously
> held, but wrong, ideas and replace them with better ideas.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at