On 12 Jan 2014, at 16:53, John Clark wrote:

## Advertising

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com>wrot> In classical physics there is no limit in principle to yourknowledge of the microstate.Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we knowbetter.> And in quantum physics, there is nothing in principle preventingyou from determining an exact quantum state for a system; only ifyou believe in some hidden-variables theoryAnd if you believe in some hidden-variable theory, ANY hidden-variable theory, then you know that if things are realistic ANDlocal then Bell's inequality can NEVER be violated; and that wouldbe true in every corner of the multiverse provided that basic logicand arithmetic is as true there as here. But experiment has shownunequivocally that Bell's inequality IS violated.

`You keep saying this, but that is incorrect. The experiments have just`

`shown that the Bell's inequality are violated in our universe,`

`assuming that the outcomes of our experiments are definite, which they`

`are not in the multiverse. Those experiments show nothing about our`

`multiverse. The experiment are supposed to give definite outcomes, not`

`the never collapsing superposed entanglement described in the big`

`picture of the multiverse.`

`Read Deutsch and Hayden's paper, or Tipler's one, of just try to`

`conceive an experimental set up showing a quantum violation of Bell's`

`inequality in the many-world picture (if that can mean anything).`

`Others gave links and papers.`

`MW is realist on all outcomes. The wave never collapse, which already`

`suggest no action at a distance, but when you do the math, like`

`Tipler, or Deustch and Hayden, (using the FPI, though, but restricted`

`to the quantum computations, like Everett), you can see that nothing`

`non local ever occurs.`

`Bell uses "realism" in some of his context, to say that there is only`

`one (real) outcome, which is basically the contrary of the MW theory.`

Bruno

So you tell me, what conclusions can a logical person can draw fromthat?> like a theory that says that particles have precise position andmomentum at all times, even though you can't measure them bothsimultaneouslyIf things have properties, like position and momentum, even if theyare not observed and even if they can't be observed in principle,then that would be a realistic theory. If such a theory was alsolocal you would know it is wrong, that is to say it would conflictwith the observed facts.> Do you think my "Toroidal Game of Life" (a finite grid of cellswith the edges identified, giving it the topology of a torus) is amathematically well-defined possible universe?Yes.> Do you disagree that starting from a randomly-chosen initial statewhich is likely to have something close to a 50:50 ratio of black towhite squares, the board is likely to evolve to a state dominated bywhite squares, which would have lower entropy if we definemacrostates in terms of the black:white ratio?You said it yourself, the rules of the Game of Life are NOTreversible, that means there is more than one way for something toget into a given state. And the present entropy of a system isdefined by Boltzman as the logarithm of the number of ways thesystem could have gotten into the state it's in now, therefore everyapplication of one of the fundamental rules of physics in the Gameof Life universe can only increase entropy.> The 2nd law is not restricted to initial conditions of "very lowentropy", it says that if the entropy is anything lower than themaximum it will statistically tend to increase, and if the entropyis at the maximum it is statistically more likely to stay at thatvalue than to drop to any specific lower value.If the universe started out in a state of maximum entropy then anychange in it, that is to say any application of one of thefundamental laws of physics will with certainty DECREASE thatentropy. And If the universe started out in a state of ALMOSTmaximum entropy then any application of one of the fundamental lawsof physics will PROBABLY decrease that entropy.> If the initial conditions deviated from maximum entropy evenslightly, the second law says that an increase in entropy should bemore likely than a decrease.That would depend on initial conditions, just how slight the slightdeviation from maximum entropy was.>> Well... you can make a Turing Machine from the Game of Life. Andaccording to the Bekenstein Bound> The Bekenstein Bound is itself just a property of the particularlaws of physics in our universe,This must be one of the few places where people talk about thingsthat "just" apply to our universe.> no one claims it would apply to all logically possiblemathematical universes, so how is it relevant to this discussionabout whether the 2nd law would apply to all such possible universes?That wasn't what I was responding to. You said:"since even though it's possible our universe could be a cellularautomaton, I think we can be pretty confident it's not a 2-dimensional cellular automaton like the Game of Life!"And I gave reasons why I am not "pretty confident">> So the rules of the Game of Life apply to some of the cells inthe grid but do not apply to others. What rules govern which cellsmust obey the rules and which cells can ignore the rules, that is tosay who is allowed to ignore the laws of physics in that universe?> No, they apply to all squares in the ideal platonic infinite boardwhose behavior you want to deduce,Then ratios become meaningless.> but there is no need to actually *simulate* any of the squaresoutside the region containing black squares, because you know by therules governing the ideal platonic infinite board that those squareswill stay all-white as long as long as they are not neighbors withany black squareI think you've got your colors backward because a solid block ofactive cells does not stay a solid block. But never mind the pointis that the pattern of active cells is constantly expanding andshrinking in a unpredictable way (that is to say the only way toknow what it will do is watch it and see). Many Game of Lifepatterns expand to infinity, so the shape and size of any closedfigure you draw and say you're only going to count cells inside thatfigure to obtain a ratio would be entirely arbitrary.John K Clark --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

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.