On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of
observable
"matter" needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given that the
appearance of
matter is only the result of the FPI on all computations (an infinite
object).
That seems to prove to much. Although QM says you can't clone an unknown
state, you
can exactly reproduce a state; and elementary particles are elementary
because they
are indistinguishable. Your reasoning above seems to imply that every bit
of matter
will be unique, an infinite set of relations.
Brent
I don't think so! Bruno's argument would still work for indistinguishable particles one
we figure out that particles are NEVER isolated entities. Their properties follow only
from their possible interaction values. Have you noticed that in GR there are no
particles, only events? We can observe an electron here and an electron there and we
cannot distinguish between them, they are fungible, and yet they are not "in the same
place".
It's more than we just can't distinguish them. Bose-Einstein statistics gives different
thermodynamics than Mawell-Boltzman.
Brent
Maybe the exchange symmetry is hidding under what Bruno is considering, re the
non-cloning theorem.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
