On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Telmo,
I can only give you my opinion.
Thanks Richard.
You are of course referring to the double
slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different
paths,
and potentially an infinite number of paths.
But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the
simplest case
send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon
potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge
of the
plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector
plane on
the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only
emerges when
the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The
actual
path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the
infinite-photon diffraction pattern.
So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number
of photons
or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern.
But then we're still left without a theory that could explain the
behaviour of a single photon without resorting to randomness, correct?
I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use
algorithms that are random number generators?
I'll leave this one for Bruno, of course. My understanding is that
it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his
book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the
outcomes.
This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more
reasonable to me than the idea that there is just one Telmo with one
personal diary. If there are infinitely many, each one with his own
personal diary, the world still looks exactly like it does to this
particular instance of me, and we do not have to resort to any
randomness magic.
It's tempting for me to extend this idea to everyone and not just
Telmos, at the risk of sounding a bit new-agey.
I don't yet understand how an algorithm could be a random number
generator (non-pseudo), but I think Bruno has more to say here.
In math, there is many randomness. Diagonal argument can easily prove
most real or decimal infinite expansions are random, in the strongest
form of randomness.
Some simple programs can generate strings passing all the usual test
of randomness, like just counting
012345678910111213141516..... 7500008956790021176043275260881 ....
You said to John Clark that you don't believe in physical randomness.
Me too. As you say it is easier to explain it by the FPI on some
domain, like Everett universal wave or on arithmetic with comp. I am
with you and Einstein on this :)
All physical events have a determinist cause and reason. I think
Einstein said he would prefer to be a plumber if that was not the case.
But as logician, I can't exclude completely a (comp) physics with non
causal events, as the physics extracted from comp is only in its
infancy, to say the least. Even in that case the non physical cause
will have an arithmetical reason, and that non cause would emerge from
the first person (plural) indeterminacy on the UD* or (sigma1)
arithmetic. No need of unnecessary magic.
Bruno
Telmo.
Richard
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com
>
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Mathematics itself seems rather magical.
For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.....infinity = -1/12
And according to Scott Aaronson's new book
when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon
they get two components: one being 1/12
and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero,
thanks to Ramanujan
If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than
infinity,
does anyone know the value of the summation.?
Hi Richard,
Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute.
How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise
same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some
hidden
variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my
head here, so this is not a rhetorical question.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com
>
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
<stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg
<whatsons...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random
way?
It couldn't.
Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither
random
nor
deterministic?
Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make
predictions about random events.
In my view, randomness = magic.
The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do
not
require magic to explain observed randomness.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send
an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send
an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
