For more on Kevin Knuth's work please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172

## Advertising

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Paul King < kingstephenp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz > invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the UD can > be considered to 'run' on chains of observer events per Knuth picture. This > gives us a nice toy model of how space-time is emergent. > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by >> Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable. >> >> >> Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI. >> >> >> Sure it is. When you take the trace of the density matrix over the >> environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local, >> mathematical operation. >> >> >> Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave >> describing the physical (physicists included) evolves deterministically and >> locally. Non locality is in the (mathematical) appearances. >> >> >> In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not local. It >> changes over a space-like interval. >> >> >> Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view, >> abstracting from the leaked information in the environment(s), a local, >> computable, phenomenon, at the correct dimensions. >> >> >> ?? The state exists in Hilbert space, not space-time. I depends on >> space-time variables which are space-like separate. So even in a MWI >> picture the state is not local and the change in state due to a measurement >> interaction doesn't propagate in space-time. >> >> >> Eventually to make this precise you need to marry GR and the quantum, >> and that's not easy. >> >> >> So will comp contribute to this? >> >> Brent >> Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic >> quantum computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall >> effect? This is less elementary. >> --- Bruno Marchal >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.