On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 1:09:05 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 7:19:05 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 4:54:58 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, January 26, 2019 at 2:25:59 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 6:06:09 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4:48:38 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 12:57:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence >>>>>>>> Crowell wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 8:59:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence >>>>>>>>>> Crowell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My point is that in physics what might be called a halting >>>>>>>>>>> condition is an attractor point or limit cycle. Equilibrium is the >>>>>>>>>>> terminal >>>>>>>>>>> point in the evolution of some system, say thinking according to >>>>>>>>>>> Landauer's >>>>>>>>>>> original paper on thermodynamics and information. The quantum field >>>>>>>>>>> theory >>>>>>>>>>> of black holes has no equilibrium condition. Now if the black hole >>>>>>>>>>> runs >>>>>>>>>>> away with Hawking radiation it will “explode” in a burst of gamma >>>>>>>>>>> rays and >>>>>>>>>>> other quanta. A Turing machine that does not halt can also be said >>>>>>>>>>> to burn >>>>>>>>>>> itself out, and if anyone has programmed assembler there were loops >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> could put a machine into that might do damage. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for being slow on this. I forgot to get flu shots this >>>>>>>>>>> year and I have been hit with a real doozy of a flu. Since Sunday >>>>>>>>>>> night >>>>>>>>>>> until yesterday I was horribly ill, and only now am beginning to >>>>>>>>>>> feel >>>>>>>>>>> normal. Get the shots, you really do not want this flu! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LC >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I used to think that there *could be* true hypercomputation >>>>>>>>>> (what is called super-Turing machines) in nature, but now I think >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> there is no such thing (but anything remains possible, of course). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *But the idea of substrate-independent Turing machines is >>>>>>>>>> incomplete.* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I shouldn't say (if will jinx me!) but I've never gotten a flu >>>>>>>>>> shot and I haven't gotten the flu in over 40 years. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I hope the flu program doesn't start running in / affect my >>>>>>>>>> substrate! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - pt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hate to pop your bubble here, but a few years ago at a New >>>>>>>>> Year's party a person who had cancer go into remission made this >>>>>>>>> statement >>>>>>>>> that she never got colds or flus. A doctor I know was there and >>>>>>>>> responded >>>>>>>>> with how not getting these sicknesses is a risk factor for cancer! >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> woman died a last summer with the return of her non-Hodgkins >>>>>>>>> lymphoma. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hyper-Turing computations or results are not accessible to local >>>>>>>>> observers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about the interviews of people over 100 who say they've never >>>>>>>> had a cold or the flu? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And where are these hyper-Turing processes occurring? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - pt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hypercomputations run into extreme energy or frequency, so the >>>>>>> conclusion of it occurs in black holes or in trans-Plankian scales we >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> observe. In a sense it is a sort of renormailization and treated as a >>>>>>> p-adic regularization of quantum gravity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it comes to cold and flu I am just echoing what I was told. You >>>>>>> would have to research this out more extensively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LC >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think "hypercomputing" is not needed in the quantum space (LQG) >>>>>> model of black holes (the recent Penn State, LSU model). >>>>>> >>>>>> As for the flu, I'm afraid researching it might jinx me. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> - pt >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> LQG of course breaks Lorentz symmetry near the Planck scale. The >>>>> finite elements have reduced diffeomorphic symmetry, and which buries >>>>> away >>>>> any such problems. The numerical simulations you reference are a typical >>>>> case of computer science, input variables in, output variable result. LQG >>>>> has a hard renormalization UV cutoff that breaks the symmetry of the >>>>> field. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In LQG, or quantum space models in general, the *Lorenz group* [ >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group ] would be replaced by a >>>> different mathematics. >>>> >>>> *All of the mathematics of conventional physics has to be "quantized" >>>> all the way down.* >>>> >>>> - pt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It's a subject worth exploring of course: >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00924 >>> >>> >>> Discrete Lorentz symmetry and discrete time translational symmetry >>> Pei Wang >>> <https://arxiv.org/search/cond-mat?searchtype=author&query=Wang%2C+P> >>> (Submitted on 1 Aug 2017 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00924v1>), >>> last revised 19 Feb 2018 (this version, v2)) >>> >>> The Lorentz symmetry and the space and time translational symmetry are >>> fundamental symmetries of nature. Crystals are the manifestation of the >>> continuous space translational symmetry being spontaneously broken into a >>> discrete one. We argue that, following the space translational symmetry, >>> the continuous Lorentz symmetry should also be broken into a discrete one, >>> which further implies that the continuous time translational symmetry is >>> broken into a discrete one. We deduce all the possible discrete Lorentz and >>> discrete time translational symmetries in 1+1-dimensional spacetime, and >>> show how to build a field theory or a lattice field theory that has these >>> symmetries. >>> >>> >>> - pt >>> >> >> The spinorial Lorentz group for (½, 0)⊕(0, ½) is SL(2, C). This being >> SL(2, C) =SL(2, R)×SL(2, R) there is a modular subgroup to SL(2, R) of >> linear fractional transformations SL(2, Z) ⊂ SL(2, R). This defines a set >> of equivalent orbits or paths. This is a discrete Lorentz symmetry for >> gauge or coordinate condition equivalent moduli. >> >> It is not commonly thought this is what spacetime is near the Planck >> scale, I suppose unless you are an LQG maven. It is connected with orbits >> on strings, with Teichmuller spaces of 6g - 6 dimensions and so forth. >> >> LC >> > > > > I can't say where theoretical physics will be decades from now (or what > new experiments and astronomical data will reveal), but that continuous > mathematical models will still be in place at at the fundamental (general > relativity) level is dubious. > > - pt >

https://gizmodo.com/a-new-way-of-thinking-about-spacetime-that-turns-everyt-1741498475 *When it comes to space, though, there can be no “smaller,” because size itself is a spatial concept. The building blocks cannot presume space if they are to explain it. They must have neither size nor location; they are everywhere, spanning the entire universe, and nowhere, impossible to point to. What would it mean for things not to have positions? Where would they be? “When we talk about emergent space-time, it must come out of some framework that is very far from what we’re familiar with,” Nima Arkani-Hamed says.* *Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things. If physicists are to succeed in explaining space as emergent, they must claim the concept of spacelessness as their own.* *Einstein foresaw these difficulties. “Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.”* *John Wheeler, the renowned gravity theorist, speculated that space-time is built out of “pregeometry,” but admitted that this was nothing more than “an idea for an idea.” Even someone as irrepressible as Arkani-Hamed has had his doubts: “These problems are very hard. They’re outside our usual language for talking about them.”* *What keeps Arkani-Hamed going is that he and his colleagues have found just the sort of methods Einstein said they’d have to — ways to describe physics in the absence of space, to breathe in the vacuum. He has put these efforts into historical perspective: “For 2,000-plus years, people asked about the deep nature of space and time, but they were premature. We’ve finally arrived at the epoch where you can pose the questions and hope for some meaningful answer.”* - pt -- 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.