On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> 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]> 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, >
Isn't that what I wrote; that a macro object is not in a superposition of states? You go on to more precisely define the state it is in. > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
