On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, <[email protected]
<javascript:>>wrote:
>
I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge
number of individual constituents, is in one definite state;
No object large enough to see with
your unaided can is in one definite state, that is to say can be
described with a single quantum wave function, with the possible
exception of a
Bose–Einstein condensate
, and even then it would be so small it would be at the limits
of visibility. And you're not going to see one in everyday life
unless you visit a lab that can cool things down to less than a
millionth of a degree above absolute zero that is needed to make a
Bose–Einstein condensate
.
Incidentally
unless
ET
exists and is also interested in physics research that lab you're
visiting is
the coldest place in the universe
.
Any macro object is in a definite state -- not a superposition of
states -- at every moment in time,
This is misleading "a superposition of states" implies a pure state
represented in some basis other than one in which it's an eigenstate. A
classical object is never in a state like that, because it is always
entangled with a lot of other objects. Since those entanglements are
unknowable, whatever basis we choose to represent the object will not
include those entanglements and the density matrix we use will be a
mixed state, one that represents all those entanglements (if it
represents them at all) as statisicaly interactions that can just be
averaged over.
but obviously the state is constantly fluctuating due to interactions
with its constituents and entities external to it.
It's interaction with them means that it is entangled with them and has
no pure state that does not also include them. Regarding the object by
itself is already implicitly averaging over or otherwise neglecting
those entanglements.
Brent
Due to the huge number of constituents, we can't write it down explicitly,
>
the lack of ISOLATION is the condition for the existence of
this macro definite state.
A baseball made of 10^25 atoms has 10^25 times more ways to
interact with the environment than a single atom does, so we'd
expect to see a baseball in just one state about
10^25 times less often than we do in a single atom.
>
The concept of Multiverse and Many Worlds come from entirely
different contexts and theories,
I don't think anybody was even talking about the Multiverse
before 1957 when Hugh Everett introduced the idea of Many Worlds,
and Evert's idea won't work without the Multiverse. That doesn't
sound entirely different to me.
Multiverse arose in the context of string theory, after Everett's MWI.
The difference between Multiverse and MWI is striking and obvious. For
example, the former has nothing to do with Joe the Plumber shooting an
electron at a slit in a lab and creating an awesome (uncountable!)
number of NEW universes.
>
For example, we know that irrational numbers exist
Do we?
Of course. It has been proven that pi and e are not rational. It's
also been proven that the irrationals are dense in the reals; that is,
many "more" irrationals than rationals; the difference between
countable and uncountable infinities.
We know that mathematicians can use the language of mathematics to
write stories about irrational numbers
,
but nobody has ever seen a irrational number
of
anything in the physical world. And we know that a English
professor can write stories about The Lord Of The Rings, but noddy
has ever seen
Frodo Baggins
or The Shire.
*
>
if your conjecture were true, it would be impossible for
irrational numbers to exist, since recurring repetitions of
subset strings would be impossible to avoid.*
If the
conjecture
is
true
then there might be a infinite number of Turing Machines in the
Multiverse but they couldn't communicate with each other and none
of them would have a infinite amount of tape. So any real Turing
Machine in the Multiverse is certain to eventually stop, not for
any software reason but because of hardware failure. Eventual any
real Turing machine will get a command like "move the read/wright
head one box to the left write a 1 in the box and then change to
state 6.02*10^23" but it will be unable to move one box to the
left became it is already at the end of the tape and there is no
more matter in the observable universe to extend it. If no
physical process can produce them that
seems to me a pretty good indication that the physical universe
doesn't need irrational numbers (or even real numbers). Many
Worlds is a theory about physics not mathematics so the
philosophic debate about the existence or nonexistence of
irrational numbers
has no bearing on existence or nonexistence of
Many Worlds.
I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about Turing machines to comment.
HOWEVER, if you prefer, forget about number theory and consider the
FINITE AGE of our universe, the observable and unobservable regions.
It's been expanding for 13.8 billion years, so its spatial extent must
be FINITE. This undercuts your argument about infinite repetitions of
whatever.
John K Clark
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
