On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish
wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity
of
> > the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that
the
> > Hamiltonian is Hermitian.
> >
>
> So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex
translations
> to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept
that has
> to have a 1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of
course that
> selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a
> multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision.
>
> So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and
> conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure.
>
> There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary
> preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be
'intuitive'.
p.s.
Conservation of energy is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem
relating time translation invariance to energy conservation.
a relation in a theorem doesn't advance the theorem. Conservation of
energy derives all kinds of ways I think. The value of the theorem
is not advanced by this. Because it can come about trivially. I'm
sure it doesn't here, but it isn't difficult to envisage trivial
translations of something conserved stepwise which is what
invariance would be doing, to something else conserved block-wise.
The equivalent theorem in the quantum setting derives unitarity of the
SE from time translation invariance.
I don't know the equation, but is this derivation one that involves
establishing the linearity of the qm equation first?
Does the unitarity of the SE if assumed correct rule out the wave
function collapse that is empirically observed?
The collapse is not empirically observed. It could be a first person
plural differentiation. The "Schroedinger kittens" experience are very
often presented as en empirical confirmation of the collapse, but in
the MW, they are seen as seeing the splitting/differentiation.
Even if assumed correct it doesn't. Because at different scales a
continuous conception can be discrete, and vice verca. Digital is
analogue at another level. Everything is quanta yet porcelain is
smooth. Nothing is settled by this, unless there is an additional
proof that there be no finer structure involving breaks.
Another problem is that energy is conserve in discrete units. Where
does that feature get eliminated?
So we've still got the collapse in play even on the strongest form
here. But take away the assumption of correctness and we are back to
an empirial observation that is repeated countless times, can be
predicted, and so on.
There are no credible grounds to over ride something like that on
the strength of a theorem that says something should be linear or
whatever. What is ohbseved robustly is not trumped easily. You'd
need extraordinary evidence and proof. And a knock down better
sciene that followed, that science advanced and more high potential
and in a higher gear.
These theories Russell sterilize Science. And have left it stalled
for more than 50 years. Nothing has been advanced. As a result
everything is ginding to a halt. Everything.
Because for 50 years empirical approaches have kept it all going.
But they start to get runaway complexity and unresolved
disagreements in fields start to fracture fields apart. Empiricism
is going to stop or stop adding value unless big breathrough theory
starts appearing again. That drive predictions through the levels
and clean the house.
So that's what we're getting for this tiny little argument.
Empirical observed phenomena dismissed. Muliverses put in place.
Science ground to a halt. No sign of things getting other than worse
ahead. Nice.
We know now where the laws of physics come from (assuming that if we
are machine). It is as important in physics as Darwin in biology. In
both case a science is reduced to another one: Darwin reduces biology
to physics, and computationalism reduces physics to intensional
arithmetic, and this in a testable way. So i think we do progress.
Bruno
--
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.
