On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17, agrays...@gmail.com <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, <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. >
*As "Multiverse" is now usually used, it refers to the multitude of possible universes with different basic parameters that might exist in parallel as claimed by String Theory, whereas the way Many Worlds is used it refers to the (uncountable!) universes allegedly automatically created when Joe the Plumber goes into a lab and shoots an electron at, say, a double slit. The two types of multiple worlds are conceptually different, hugely different, and that was all I was asserting. To claim that the two concepts are somehow the same is a common error, and egregiously misleading to equate them. * > > > > 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. > *Why are you splitting hairs? Clark questioned whether irrational numbers exist. I asserted their existence has been proven, obviously in the context of mathematics and mathematical logic. I didn't assert, and wouldn't, that they exist in the physical world, any more than I would assert you can find a perfect triangle in the physical world. * *I am interested in your opinion that, as I contend, the universe we inhabit, must be finite in spatial extent since it is finite in age. This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss, apparently. * > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > 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.
