On 17 Apr 2014, at 13:14, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Classical thermodynamics and heat transfer calculates the approach
to equilibrium exactly AFAIK. Increasing the amount/range of
statistics which I expect entanglement should do should then
increase the rate of approach to equilibrium which apparently it
does not, otherwise there would be empirical data to support the
entanglement story, which apparently there is not. So I suggest that
entanglement is just an alternative or more detailed explanation of
classical thermodynamics.
The links is interesting.
Actually I agree with you Richard, classical thermodynamic explains
completely and exactly the heat transfer.
But of course there is a catch: the "world" seems to not be classical,
and somehow, the quantum by itself put the classical explanation in
doubt. That is a subtle point and to be honest I am not at ease here.
For years I disbelieved (wrongly) in the possibility of quantum chaos.
But I knew some physicists seemed worrying finding a quantum version
of the thermodynamical classical explanation in the quantum frame.
Comp leads to a sequence of similar problems.
Now the entanglement role in explaining the equilibrium exactly seems
rather obvious to me, and I am not that astonished by the article and
Lloyd's contribution. It seems to me it that this is just equivalent
with the idea of avoiding collapse, which spreads the superposition
quickly and "vastly" (by simple combinatorial use + the usual
lienarities of QM), so that this is probably just the "classical"
thermodynamical explanation in the MW context. (Which might not be
your favorite reason why we agree on this!). Such an explanation of
time might survived in the marriage between QM and GR.
(And QM itself must be given by a first person plural equilibrium of
that sort, at a relatively deeper level, if we take comp seriously
enough).
When Lloyd says: ""The present can be defined by the process of
becoming correlated with our surroundings."", it is basically the
indexical definition of time, and you can relate it to Everett
relative state, and to the relative computational state in arithmetic.
I think it is hardly avoidable in monist philosophies where there is
ONE simple thing or principle, and the MANY is given by the internal
views of that simple thing seen from inside. Lloyd, like everybody
(except in this list), does not push that kind of logic as far as
computationalism needs us to do.
Bruno
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes
<[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140416-times-arrow-traced-to-quantum-source/
I like the idea, but am two naive in theoretical physics to have an
informed opinion. Would more knowledgable people care to comment?
At first sight, this seems very much inline with Bruno's ideas.
Best,
Telmo.
--
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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
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 [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/d/optout.
