On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 7:52:08 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:03:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> This replaces space, time, particles, fields with histories.
>> I think this is compatible with universal machines.
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/histories-of-phenomenally-everything-hope/
>> - pt
> This illustrates a problem with the epistemology of physics. It stems from 
> Newton's laws, in particular the second law of motion F = ma. On the left 
> hand side we have the dynamics in a force. We have on the right a physical 
> quantity in the mass of a body as a scalar quantity. We then have the 
> acceleration 
> a = lim_{Δt → 0}Δ^2x/Δt^2 = d^2x/dt^2.
> This then multiplies the physical scalar mass to give a dynamical, which 
> means measurable, force that has a direction. We can then think of this as 
> a strange equation that multiplies a physical quantity by a geometric 
> quantity that then gives a dynamical force that is physical. Issac Newton 
> wrote this according to a construction called fluxions, which in time gave 
> was to the calculus based more on Leibniz and ultimately Weierstrass. Yet 
> the early period was full of roiling controversy over what we meant by 
> these infinitesimals and so forth. The geometric aspect of Newton's second 
> law appeared to have a different meaning from what would be expected of 
> something physical.
> This confusion continues into general relativity. We might write the 
> Einstein field equation as 
> Geometric curvature = physical dynamics,
> where Einstein was most enamored with the left hand side, calling it 
> marble, while the right hand side he cited as wood. There is the mixing of 
> categories in general relativity that is remarkably similar to Newtonian 
> mechanics. The general theory of relativity is based on the equivalence 
> principle, and this tells us that for a sufficiently local frame there is 
> no experiment that can determine if the frame is global in free space or in 
> a gravitational field. This gives the sort of calculus rule, small frames 
> removes geometric information and thus dynamics, and the geometrodynamical 
> theory is built from atlas-chart constructions on such infinitesimal frames.
> General relativity gives geometry more of an active role. There may be 
> gravitational waves, undulations of space that evolve in time, that we 
> observe by the physical displacement of interferometer elements. We have in 
> our minds these mental models of space and spacetime, but ultimately we 
> have a category problem; space and spacetime while defined by clocks and 
> rulers, is not in of itself something that has direct physics. 
> We might then consider quantum gravitation. I think that spacetime is an 
> emergent property of quantum entanglement. Given a group G for the 
> symmetries of a quantum system or field, then in the Cartan decomposition G 
> = H×K the subgroup H is G modulo the action of K so H = G/K, and for a 
> quantum system this means the wave function is invariant with respect to 
> some description. Such as for entangled spins, the entangled wave function 
> has no description according to the spins. 
> In general relativity dynamics can be thought of as what extremizes the 
> action S = ∫d^4x sqrt(g)R, for R the Ricci curvature. Action and entropy 
> share an equivalency under the euclideanized map t/ħ = 1/kT for t time and 
> T temperature. We can also work this within complexity, and with quantum 
> gravitation the importance is with entanglement entropy or complexity. This 
> means that quantum gravitation is built from quantum states, which as we 
> all should be aware are not ontological entities in a standard sense. We 
> still have physics, in particular the aspect of physics that conveys 
> geometric or spatial relationship content, that is not ontologically solid. 
> This appears to be a fundamental aspect of physics, or at least physics as 
> we can understand.
> For this reason I think ideas that have spacetime composed of little 
> elements that are physical are not likely correct. This has been a long 
> standing critique I have of quantum gravitation theories outside of string 
> theory. This is not to say I think string theory has everything sewed up. 
> However, these various ideas such as LQG, DT and SD etc seem to have 
> category conflicts.
> LC
I should note that in my histories framework (which is all it is right now) 
I added

*29 Jan 2019*

By “historical paths (curves or walks)”, “Histories have a path 
representation as a sequence”, I mean sequence in terms of having a 
linearly ordered index I, so each element of the history is indexed:

            (στ,φ)ᵢ     i ∈ I

The type of "linearly ordered index" I is not specified, so it could be 
discrete or continuous, in principle.

- 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.

Reply via email to