On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrayson2...@gmail.com 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, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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, but obviously the state is
constantly fluctuating due to interactions with its constituents and
entities external to it. 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.
To my knowledge, "multiverse" is the terming given by David Deutsch
for the Many-Worlds. Then, String Theory has used that terming in its
context, but it could have used "many-World". String theory is a
special application of QM.
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.
The rational are dense, but countable. The real are not countable. But
this is mathematics, not physics. You need some metaphysical or
theological hypothesis to talk about the existence or non-existence of
a mathematical object in a physucal reality, or vice versa. See my
work for an explanation that if Mechanism is true in cognitive
science, then, there is 0 physical universe, as arithmetic emulate all
dreams, and the physical apperances emerges from "number's dream"
statistic. It seems you assume Aristotle metaphysics, which assumes
that there is a primary/primitive/non-derivable Physical Universe.
Bruno
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
