On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote
>>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in
>>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum
>>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time.
>>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop
>>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as
>>> small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where
>>> the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the
>>> fabric of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be
>>> divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this
>>> is the case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,"
>>> Singh said.
>>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which
>>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can
>>> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations
>>> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding
>>> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which
>>> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>> Brent,
>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another
>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's
>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete),
>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.
> How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/zq6LVIjhrn0/kVZao94IeGkJ (A
post from 2007, citing his work from 2004)

The essential idea is that the first person experience of a physical world,
and of making predictions or measurements involves infinite numbers of
competing programs going through and realizing the state of the observer's
mind at one point in time. Predicting what happens next, the outcome of an
experiment, a measurement of a particle's location, etc. involves the
statistics concerning the infinity of these programs. It means the physical
appearances/physical universe is itself not computable (not without
infinite time and resources), and this implies a continuum somewhere in
physics. (i.e. eechanism is incompatible with digital physics)

> And where did he make such a prediction?

(post from 2007, explaining the continuum)

(post from 2009, describing that physics cannot be entirely computational
if "I am a machine")

(post from 2009, pointing out that if digital physics is true, then
mechanism would be refuted)


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.

Reply via email to