At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability, the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that wasn't at the scale above.
You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to be On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi, > > I re-read S. Mitra's paper > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0902.3825v2.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFnc0z9SwLW-HfdQv80vaf6sf0heg> > > again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible > measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of > entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe. > The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite > definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size > in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information > expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure > that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to > be looked at carefully. > In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing > discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent > as a 1p world? > > -- > > Kindest Regards, > > Stephen Paul King > > > -- 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.
