my nick has an ibbsey ring at that On Friday, November 7, 2014 12:12:37 AM UTC, yanniru wrote: > > Zibbsey, you write amazingly like Hibbsa. > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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.
