For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits,
the so-called Lloyd Limit.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux
<allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical
liquids...
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:
I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that
definitive -
granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive?
It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside
"fundamental" particles!
On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is
better
compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35.
So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with
Fermi
gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in
energy
arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas
granularity would
delay one measurably.
Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain
classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS.
However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability
of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is
most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something
physical "out there". It is something Allen Francom bangs on about
too,
which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with
his Brownian Quantum Universe models.
>>Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but
quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by
some continuum aI0> + bI1> (a and b complex).
The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic
granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need
to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale.
>>The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the
physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous
observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that
*only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say
those are open problems).
>>I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out
granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to
play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural
universal machines view).
Bruno
If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no
need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable
chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as
it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed
>>... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking,
so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some
inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists,
and it might be that physical reality is ever growing.
have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine,
the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all
computations (which exist in arithmetic)?
Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to
use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) –
may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough
in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is
concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along
the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – what
would they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithms
perhaps -- re-write and “fix” transient paradoxes, loose ends etc.
in order to produce, at least on the observer’s macro scale, the
smooth perception of rock solid causality.
And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality
continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at
least) then causality can be said to be operative…. Even if it needs
to get fixed up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observed
reality, as long as at the functional level its Laws stand then it
would seem to all still work out.
This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe –
wormholes, backwards vectors of time and the foaming sea of virtual
particle pairs popping in and out of our universe – at the
femtoscale it all seems very chaotic and non-casual (at least in the
simple linear manner we experience causality and the flow of time)
>>>>so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would
emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be
achieved. If reality is information and information can be described
with equations that are scale invariant (such as for example vector
graphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then a
computational model can still describe the entire universal
relationship and identity sets even when there is seemingly no end
(that we have found) to how small a point of spacetime can be.
OK. But computationalism ("I am a machine) entails the existence of
at least one observable which relies on real numbers" and is not
completely turing emulable. It might be the quantum frequency
operator (describe well by Graham and Preskill's course).
One could say that “I” cannot know itself without some outside
perspective upon which to reflect its being and by which to measure
it. Can a pure I – i.e. singularity – know anything about itself,
even that it exists, without introducing some outside perspective? I
find that hard to conceive of.
I am not so sure about the assumption that that outside perspective
is not itself also a computational thread of reality manifest and
that both the observer and the outside thing that enables the
observer to have something against which to observe are not both
themselves – non-communicating – elements of some larger equation/
model/dataset. The observer element is unaware that the observable
element (which is also unaware of any super-connection) and itself
are member elements of some super-model…
And so on and so forth…. This leads to a hall of mirrors, of an ever-
receding infinite series of ever larger supersets…. To which both
observer and observable belong unbeknown to each other… and so on
and so forth for each super set in turn and the set of everything
that is observable by it yet is experienced as being external to it,
by it.
Clearly not satisfactory or ideal. Perhaps on some basic level the
universe is a circular queue lol.
It seems to me that all that is strictly necessary is for the
observer to be convinced that the observable is fundamentally
external to the universe of things it considers to be itself (and
symmetrically so for the observable, which may act as actor in
different roles)
As long as this condition is satisfied then the observer and the
observable are free to act as if one was truly external to the
other, even if at some super-level they are in in fact lower level
elements of some superset and transcendental model that encompasses
them both (and which leads to a hall of mirrors, unless we can admit
the possibility of a circular queue so astronomically huge that the
serpent head will never ever know that it is actually eating its own
tail. )
>>>>So long as this does not much matter to the computational theory
itself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurement
of the lack of any fine structure in spacetime.
Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist
hypothesis in "philosophy of mind", and 2) the hypothesis that the
universe is the product of some program.
2) implies 1)
but
1) implies the negation of 2) (this can be explained with the
thought experiment like in the UDA).
In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-
contradictory.
Bruno
You lost me here… why does 1) negate 2)?
Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity of
computations below the substitution level (there is an infinity of
computations going through your current state). 2 implies matter is
the result of one specific computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 =>
2 => ~2.
Quentin
Is it because 1) requires some external observable that is not a
part of itself
As seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2)
Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiring
an external observable in order to even know it exists. Unless
something could be perfectly self-referential, which I sense you
doubt.
perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J
Chris
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
