Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. However I see that isn't so, so I will be interested to know how it's testable - if I ever make it to understanding AUDA. I hope to be able to explain enough so that you understand the main line on this. Meanwhile, more explanation, notably in my answer to Brent. Bruno 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote: snip That doesn't mean it can explain ghosts, leprechauns, gods and other things *not* observed. Why not consciousness and other things that we do not see, but at least believe in? There's a difference between being able to explain anything and explaining everything. That's my point. Bruno Then it's not well taken since I used the word anything originally and your complaint implies I wrote everything. All right. I interpreted anything by anything worth to be explained. If not, for a logician, that which can explain anything becomes an inconsistent theory, or the set of sentences true in a cul-de-sac world. If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. Bruno. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? Regards, Quentin However I see that isn't so, so I will be interested to know how it's testable - if I ever make it to understanding AUDA. I hope to be able to explain enough so that you understand the main line on this. Meanwhile, more explanation, notably in my answer to Brent. Bruno 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. This sounds like my sort of science! One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small... -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Modal logic 4 (was Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas).
On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2014 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Liz, if Brent don't mind, my answer to Brent here contains a bit on
modal logic, directly related to the machine discourse (and this
will be justified later, as it is not obvious at all).
snip
which translates the UDA. the Gödel provability cannot be used
for the UD measure, due to the cul-de-sac worlds. That is why we
need []p p, or []p Dt, or []p Dt p.
Brent, do you see this?
Are you OK that in a cul-de-sac world we have []A for all A?
I understand that W is a cul-de-sac world means there is no world
accessible from W (including W itself), so A is true in all worlds
accessible from W is vacuously satisfied.
OK.
But then we also have []~A in W.
OK.
So []A in W doesn't say anything about the truth value of A in W.
That seems like a peculiar formulation.
?
This means only that modal logic is not truth-functional. We already
know that. If alpha R beta (and only beta), and if p is true in beta
and false in alpha, you have []p in alpha, and ~p in alpha. But you
could have p in alpha. []A truth value does not depend on the truth
value of A. We say that modal logic is not truth functional.
I repeat two arguments.
I recall first Kripke semantics:
All the worlds obeys CPL. And there is some fixed binary relation R
on that set of worlds (called accessibility).
Then,
[]p is true in a world alpha if p is true in all worlds beta such
that alpha R beta
Or equivalently, (and dually):
p is true in a world alpha if it exists a world beta with p true
in beta and alpha R beta.
(re-verify that this entails well
p = ~[]~p
[]p = ~~p
~[]p = ~p (jump law 1)
~p = []~p (jump law 2)
OK?)
Now consider some multiverse with zeta being a cul-de-sac world, like
{alpha, beta, gamma, zeta} with
alpha R beta, beta R gamma, gamma R zeta.
And nothing else. In that multiverse zeta is a cul-de-sac world.
OK?
Proposition. For any proposition A, []A is true in zeta.
Proof.
Imagine that []A is not true in Zeta. Zeta obeys CPL, so if []A is
not true, []A is false. OK? And if []A is false, then
~[]A is true, by classical logic. OK?
But if ~[]A is true, then ~A is true, by the jump law 1 above. OK?
Then by Kripke semantics above, if ~A is true in Zeta, it means
that there is a world accessible from Zeta, and in which ~A is true.
But that is impossible, given that Zeta is a culd-de-sac world.
Conclusion: []A cannot be false in Zeta.
But since A is any proposition it is also the case that []~A cannot
be false in Zeta. So while either A or ~A but not both are true in
Zeta, []A and []~A are both true.
Exact. That is why cul-de-sac world shoild be avoided: everything is
necessary, and nothing is possible (when reading the box and
diamond with the alethic sense, which is some abuse, but can be useful
pedagogically).
Summary: []A is true, for any A, in any cul-de-sac world, of any
Kripke multiverse. This is a direct consequence of the jump law: as
[]A can only be false if ~A is true, and all proposition
beginning by a diamond are false in a cul-de-sac world.
In particular []f is true in the cul-de-sac worlds. And in fact []f
is false in any non cul-de-sac world. So []f characterizes the cul-
de-sac worlds in Kripke semantics. OK?
definition: I will say that a world is transitory iff it is not
cul-de-sac world.
Now, the G modal logic has curious Kripke multiverse.
What's the definition of the G modal logic?
It is the logic obeyed by Gödel's beweisbar, when provable by the
machine.
By Solovay first theorem it is axiomatized by the axiom:
[]([]A - A) - []A)
With CPL (and thus the modus ponens rule), the K axioms [](A - B) -
([]A - []B), and the necessitation rules A / []A.
[]A - [][]A can be proved in that theory, like t - ~[]t
(Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
On Kripke semantics is given by finite irreflexive and transitive
multiverse.
Another one is transitive multiverse without infinite path (a R b, b R
c, c R d, ...). In particular this implies irreflexivity, as a R a
entails a R a, a R a, a R a, etc.
No worlds can ever access to itself, but worse, all worlds access
to some cul-de-sac world. (cf the image you die at each instant in
comp or in the little buddhist theory).
G proves t - []f. This says, in Kripke semantics, that if I am
in a transitory world, then I can access to a cul-de-sac world.
OK?
So let us come back in reality, and let us consider our common very
small multiverse {Helsinki, Washington, Moscou}, or {H, W, M} to be
shorter.
We are in the protocol of step 3. And suppose we are told that in M
and W, we will have a cup of coffee.
Then we would like to say that
[](we-will have a cup-of-coffee)
is true in Helsinki. Ou guardian angel G* told us that W and M
is true in Helsinki, so it looks like the probability one is well
captured by the
Re: Nagel on Explanation
On 12 February 2014 08:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an event of that type occurred. - Thomas Nagel This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why there is any such type of thing as qualities which are felt, seen, heard, etc, only that there are gaps in what can be understood about how machines logically operate. Nothing could ever explain such qualities, even in theory, since as with the question what is the meaning of life? if the answer given is X then one can always ask and what is the meaning of X?. This process can only stop by telling the inquisitor that enough explanation has been provided and to stop asking more questions. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 13 Feb 2014, at 05:38, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:18PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are right, the qualia are in X1* \ X1, like we get quanta in S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*. The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of X1*\X1, (and even that supposes that Z captures all observations, which I think is debatable), By UDA, p to refer to a physical certainty needs to 1) UD generated (= sigma_1 arithmetical and true). 2) provable (true in all consistent extensions) 3) and non trivially provable (= there must be at least one consistent extension) This give the []p t, with p sigma_1. So the logic of observable certainty should be given by the Z1* logic. This is certainly an interesting understanding that I hadn't met in your writings before. You worry me a bit, as I think this is explained in all papers and the thesis. I know that I am concise. Normally, if everything get clear, you should see that this is what I am explaining everywhere. In associating provable with true in all consistent extensions, In case of provable, this is Gödel COMPLEteness result (not incompleteness!). In case of an abstract box, in a modal logic having a Kripke semantics, this is just the semantics of Kripke. are you meaning that so long as something (ie proposition) is computed by all programs instantiating your current state, no matter how far in the future that calculation might require, then that something is (sigma_1) provable. I am not sure. true in all consistent extensions is a very general notion. What happens is that, in arithmetic, the sigma_1 sentences, when true, are provable (already by RA). So they verify the formula A - []A. (called TRIV for trivial, as that sentence makes many modal logic collapsing, but not so in the provability logic, not even in the 1p S4Grz). In fact a machine is Turing universal iff for all sigma_1 sentences A we have A - []A. So A - []A is the Turing universality axiom, when A is put for any sigma_1 sentence. G1 is G + A-[]A. Visser proved an equivalent of Solovay theorem for G1 and G1*. You can find it in Boolos 1993. It is a way to restrict the logic of the different points of view on the UD*. To be a finite piece of computation is itself given by a sigma_1 formula, and the sigma-1 sentences model computations. Then 12 gives your hypostase for knowledge, ie S4Grz1. Only G1 at that stage. To get knowledge, you need to do 1 and 2, but on []p p, like to get observation/probability/expectation, you need to do 1 and 2, but on (3) []p t. And to get sensible observation, you can mix knowledge ( p), and consistency t. Incompleteness makes all those views obeying to different logic. It is, of course the sigma_1 restriction of Theatetus's definition of knowledge, which both Brent I share quibbles with, but accept for the sake of the argument. Since Plato, many philosophers quibble on Theaetetus' definition. The fist quibbler being Socrate, who refuted it. The magic things happening with comp, is that Socrate's refutation does no more apply, and the only argument against it which remains, is the argument put forward by people who believe that they can distinguish, immediately in the 1p view, simulations or dreams from reality. But this we have already abandoned when we accept an artificial brain (like in step 6). But assuming 3) above is equivalent to assuming the no cul-de-sac conjecture by fiat. The beauty is that incompleteness makes sense of that move. In most modal logic []p - t. I don't feel comfortable in assuming that axiomatically - I was hoping for a proof, or even just a better justification for that. I am not sure what that would mean. Here the proofs is that the move need to get a probability notion from a provability notion makes genuine new sense thanks to incompleteness. When we predict P(head) = 1/2, we also, but *implicitly*, assume t by fiat. Incompleteness gives the opportunity to see that making it explicit does change the logic, and that is why observation will obeys to a different logic than knowledge, and that is exactly what we need to get physics and knowledge, and belief, ... from the same arithmetical reality accessible by a machine. A rumor, alluded in the book by Franzen (on the abuse of Gödel!), is that I define probability by provability, but of course, that is not the case. Knowledge and probability are intensional nuance of provability, not provability itself. Best, Bruno 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
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp- physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But comp justifies this: the modalities of provability and observation does not collapse, and so there are universal (in a strong sense) laws or physical truth. Among those already predicted by comp, is the Many- worlds aspect of reality, which appears under the substitution level, and the existence of indeterminacy and non-cloning. In particular, without QM, I would probably tend to believe that comp is not plausible. But comp gives the whole mathematics of observability, which leads to infinitely many testable propositions. For example, a form of Bell's
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp, because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our reality) hence, that virtual world is as real as ours by UDA (and not so virtual)... hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true. Quentin But comp justifies this: the modalities of provability and observation does not collapse, and so there are universal (in a strong sense) laws or physical truth. Among those already
Re: Nagel on Explanation
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:10:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 12 February 2014 08:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an event of that type occurred. - Thomas Nagel This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why there is any such type of thing as qualities which are felt, seen, heard, etc, only that there are gaps in what can be understood about how machines logically operate. Nothing could ever explain such qualities, even in theory, since as with the question what is the meaning of life? if the answer given is X then one can always ask and what is the meaning of X?. This process can only stop by telling the inquisitor that enough explanation has been provided and to stop asking more questions. I'm saying that the process can also stop by the inquisitor and the answerer both realizing that meaning, life, and aesthetic qualities might be unexplainable because they are all different frequencies (literally, btw) of the same Absolute thing - which is what I call sense (aka primordial identity pansensitivity). Not just an open ended magical Nameless possibility or Vacuum Flux, Energy, God, Unity, Laws of Physics or Love, but a scientifically accessible meta-property with specific capacities and limitations. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp, It must be true at the physical level, about the real (by comp) physical reality. because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our reality) hence, that virtual world is as real as ours by UDA (and not so virtual)... It is like a dream, or a simulation implemented on
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp, It must be true at the physical level, about the real (by comp) physical reality. because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our reality) hence, that virtual world is as real as ours by UDA (and not so virtual)... It is like a dream, or a
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though. So how would you know you were a copy? It has nothing to do with whether or not I would know, it's because in my understanding, copying is not primitively real, but rather is a consequence of low level insensitivity. As awareness approaches the limits of its sensitivity, everything seems more and more the same. From an absolute perspective, awareness cannot be substituted, because substitution is the antithesis of awareness. That's your theory of why you don't think your experience could be replaced with a copy, but you haven't explained what you think would happen. It depends on what method was being used to try to copy my experience. The common theme would be that the copy would fall short aesthetically and functionally from the outside view, and that it would have no inside view. Here you are today, incredulous about the story of your destruction last night, but we produce witnesses and videotapes and whatever other proof you need. What are you going to say to that? Your question is If you were wrong about awareness being non-transferable, would you still think you were right?. I'm not even sure what that fallacy is called...a loaded non-question? No, it's a simple question. You could answer something like, If I were replaced by a copy last night then my copy would tell you today that he is not Craig Weinberg. I don't have a problem with the logic that once you accept the false premise of copyable experience, then the copy would be unable to detect that they were a copy (although even that makes unscientific assumptions about the limits of sense). The problem is that being replaced by a copy is like a circle and square becoming the same thing. If it were possible to have a change in mental state without a change in brain state that would be evidence that we don't think with our brain. Some claim that NDEs are such changes, and that their experiences have occurred during periods without brain activity. Certainly there is evidence that correlates decreased brain activity with increased perception with psilocybin uses, which would suggest at the very least that a one-to-one correspondence of mental to neurological activity is an oversimplification. Obviously, since maximal brain activity occurs during an epileptic fit, during which there may be no consciousness. I would not deny that we think with our brain, in the sense that the human experience of thought corresponds with the appearance of human brain activity, but that doesn't mean that our consciousness and experience of living is part of our brain or can be located through our brain. No, I would not use those terms. But I don't believe that an experience can occur in the absence of all brain activity, for example if the brain is frozen in liquid nitrogen. I don't believe that either, but that doesn't mean that thought and feeling can be frozen. They wouldn't be frozen, they would just stop, at least temporarily if there were no permanent damage to the brain. They would stop locally to the person, but what that holds the brain together undamaged on the microphysical level does so because it supervenes on microphenomenal aesthetic experiences to to so. If the person's life did not end, then their super-personal and sub-personal levels of experience did not stop. They include the sense of the material and circumstantial interactions on every level. It's fully integrated. The software differences are still encoded as physical differences in the computer, for example different electrical charges at different physical locations on a memory chip. Similarly, language is encoded differently in the fine structure of the synaptic connections even if the brains belong to identical twins raised in different countries. The physical differences are only encoded as software if there is a human user who is interpreting it as meaningful. Without the user who cares about the difference, and for whom the software is designed to interface with, there is only unencoded physical differences in the computer. The same goes for the brain. Without us, the brain is just a complex piece of coral, storing and repeating meaningless configurations of electrical, molecular, and cellular interactions that have nothing to do with human consciousness. If the meaningless configurations of of electrical, molecular and cellular interactions occur then consciousness also occurs, and they aren't meaningless any more. That is, we know that these physical processes are *sufficient* for
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/ liter NHK http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140213_22.html , Feb. 13, 2014: Record cesium level in Fukushima plant groundwater - [Tepco] says water samples taken from a newly-dug well contained the highest levels of radioactive cesium detected so far in groundwater at the site [...] the record levels suggest that the leakage point could be near the well. [...] 600 times the government standard for radioactive wastewater that can be released into the sea. It is more than 30,000 times the level of cesium 137 found in water samples taken from another observation well to the north last week. [...] [Tepco has] yet to determine where the leak originates. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp, It must be true at the physical level, about the real (by comp) physical reality. because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our reality) hence, that
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But it can't be true everywhere with comp, It must be true at the physical level, about the real (by comp) physical reality. because, I can write a virtual world where this does not hold, and as it is a virtual world, an infinity of computations approximate it at any level in the UD deployement (like our
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true. So if you extract F= KmM/r^2 from comp, and you refute it ostensibly (by flying) then you can infer that either comp is false, or you are dreaming (or you are in a simulation, done, not by the UD, but implemented on the real physics which is not done by the UD but supervenes on the whole UD in a non computable). I think you can't conclude anything, because as I point out, any measure you made is geographical under comp hence no measure can invalidate it. I guess you mean any measurement I made is geographical. I agree that the making of the measurement is geographical, but what I measure might be physically universal, unless physics is only geography, but that is already refuted by comp, thanks to the non collapse of the modal logic brought by the intensional variants. Comp here already predicts that *there* is a physical part common to all geographies, and that is what I call physical laws, as the rest will be sort of contingencies. You are right that we don't test just comp, but comp + theaetetus + we are at the base level of physics (not dreaming or simulated at a higher level). OK? Ok... but it is no more comp. The we are at the base level of physics is the same thing as primitive matter, Peter Jones realness ingredient. Not at all. By definition of that realness ingredient, it cannot be tested, except trivially by being conscious, as all virtual being not implemented in physics are non-conscious in that Peter Jones theory. This makes Peter Jones realness neither confirmable nor refutable (and thus pseudo-religious somehow, or just a reification philosophical mistake). But in our case, that realness (defined by the satisfiability of comp + theaetetus + non-dream) is *refutable*. That is why I explained (to Brett Hall, notably) that a computationalist can test if he belongs to an (higher order, physical (in the comp sense)) simulation. If you program that simulation, and I am the simulated observer, I can derive the physical laws from comp (without doing any observation) and compare it to what I observe. If that fits, I can't conclude anything (and my 1p will overlap on reality and the simulation. I still derived the correct laws of physics), but if I find a discrepancy (and if you don't mess with my virtual brain so that I stay correct) then I can conclude that (~comp V ~Theaetetus V ~simulation). As long as you don't specify anything measurable that can be use to claim a discrepancy... you can't do that... I give an infinity of such specification. If my environment obeys to the physics Z1*, qZ1*, I can't conclude anything, but I will still derive the correct laws, either by introspection, or by observation. If my environment does not obey to Z1*, I am in an artificial simulation. Even F=m*a cannot be universal as I've shown, It might be. I think it is (I mean the Feynman generalisation, which is already close to comp-physics, but that's out of the topic). the fact that I could write a virtual world where it does not hold, imply that this virtual world exists in the UD deployement in an infinity of computations which interfere like our reality, no difference here... The computation interfere below the substitution level, but the artificial simulation with F≠ma, bring an artificial physics, which does not result from the interference below the subst. level. If qZ1* proves F=ma, and if my environment does not obeys F=ma, it will looks dreamy to me, I will see that I am not in a real (comp) physical reality, I will see the discrepancy. so by the same point as our real world, a conscious being in my virtual world (if a UD exists, and in platonia of course it exists), then at the next step he will be out *my* virtual world but not the consistent extension of it where F=m*a still does not hold true... hence F=m*a cannot be universal in this context and cannot be use to invalidate comp... so as long as you can't say precisely what kind of measurement would invalidate comp or what exactly comp physics encompass (IMO not much except multiplicity of worlds), I can't see a way to falsify it, and certainly not by a measurement. If you think otherwise, please state what kind of measurement you think would qualify. *All* physical measurement can refute comp V simulation in principle, as anything physical can be both derived in comp, and then tested. Of course, if there were no physical laws, and that all number relations measured by physicists are contingent, then that would be a pity for the notion of physical laws. But then comp would predict that those geographical laws have to be accessible and we should be able to
How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Gravitation curves space. So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why not? If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle? If so what is the geometric form of that curvature relative to an accelerating mass? Does that curvature affect anything else than the mass itself, e.g. anything that the accelerating mass passes near to? If so how? Or is that curvature only of the space that the accelerating mass itself occupies? If so how does that work and interact with the surrounding space? If there is such geometry, how does that relate to the other relativistic effects of acceleration? Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Liz, 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic scenario requires that to be true. That is what I've continually pointed out to Jesse that's gone over his head, that relativity itself uses a common computational background for all frames. If it didn't it couldn't properly describe relativistic scenarios from the separate frame dependent views of all involved observers. This hidden and unstated assumption of relativity itself is the basis of p-time. What relativity requires is a common background IN WHICH the equations for each frame exist and can be compared. The dozen or so examples I've given to Jesse show how to compare different relativistic frames in a manner completely consistent with relativity, that relativity itself assumes in being able to state the equations for SEPARATE frames in any relativistic scenario. I doubt this will register with you either, it certainly hasn't with Jesse, but it's the correct answer to your question, and it is what is implicitly assumed by relativity itself. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:36:44 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: 5. The easy way is just to pause the experiment at any point and compare clocks (that is in effect what the twins do when they meet) because this immediately re-synchronizes clock rates enabling the real actual age differences up till then to be compared. What does at any point mean for separated observers? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. To the question in your last paragraph. Yes, of course we assume originally synchronized clocks. Remember this is a thought experiment, and that is clearly possible if we assume it's done at rest relative to each other and then magically without acceleration (your instantaneous acceleration, which is also physically impossible, but has the exact same thought effect). So do you agree that given synchronized clocks, A and B in relative motion will still have synchronized clocks in their own frames to each other? I.e., that A will have the same reading on his own clock that B does on his own clock? And do you also agree that when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's, AND they will both be the same age because of that? This is just elementary relativity theory, nothing to do with p-time at all... What it does demonstrate though is that relativity theory itself provides a frame independent way to compare its own relativistic frame dependent views. It has to because that's the only way it can specify both frames from OUTSIDE those frames. This is why relativity itself requires an independent computational background in which it can specify multiple frame dependent views of all relativistic scenarios. That independent computational background is p-time. P-time is the frame independent background in which relativistic frames can be compared. It is what allows the twins to compare their different clock times when they have real and actual different clock times and ages. When they are in different clock times, only if they are in the same actual p-time, as all observes must always be, could they compare their different clock times. It's a simple and absolutely essential necessity, whether you understand that or not, and relativity itself requires and assumes it. If there was not a common frame independent background in which multiple frame views could be specified, relativity theory could not even exist. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:26:54 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous. First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions. The question is what clock times of various observers correspond to a same point of p-time? The answer is that to find out what t of any observer in any relativistic frame corresponds to any t' of any other relativistic frame you just pause the experiment so that all relativistic effects freeze at that instant. Are you just going to completely ignore my point that at that instant is ambiguous unless you already know which event on B's worldline occurs at the same instant in p-time as an event on A's worldline? Again: if you want to pause B at the same instant that A turns 60, but one frame says that at the instant A turns 60, B is 48, while another frame says at the instant A turns 60, B is 75, what PHYSICAL PROCEDURE would you suggest to determine when to pause B? (unless of course you acknowledge that p-time simultaneity can't be determined by any physical procedure, and is just an unknowable metaphysical truth) Please don't answer pause B at the same instant A turns 60 because that's not a physical procedure, just a statement of faith that there is some objective frame-independent truth about B's age at that instant. If all there is is just non-accelerated, non-gravitational relative motion, you don't even have to pause the experiment. All you have to do is note that A's clock in his frame will be the same as B's clock in his frame, for all t and t' values Are you saying that even if A and B are *not* at rest relative to one another, as long as they are moving inertially free from gravity you still assume that at a single point in p-time their clocks have the same reading? Presumably this would only be if they had synchronized their clocks at some point in the past, like the moment they passed next to each other at the same point in spacetime? But then see the questions in my other recent post about whether you even agree that clock readings that happen at the same point in spacetime must happen at the same p-time... Jesse On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:46:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said I'm pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two clocks meet at a
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true. So if you extract F= KmM/r^2 from comp, and you refute it ostensibly (by flying) then you can infer that either comp is false, or you are dreaming (or you are in a simulation, done, not by the UD, but implemented on the real physics which is not done by the UD but supervenes on the whole UD in a non computable). I think you can't conclude anything, because as I point out, any measure you made is geographical under comp hence no measure can invalidate it. I guess you mean any measurement I made is geographical. I agree that the making of the measurement is geographical, but what I measure might be physically universal, unless physics is only geography, but that is already refuted by comp, thanks to the non collapse of the modal logic brought by the intensional variants. Comp here already predicts that *there* is a physical part common to all geographies, and that is what I call physical laws, as the rest will be sort of contingencies. You are right that we don't test just comp, but comp + theaetetus + we are at the base level of physics (not dreaming or simulated at a higher level). OK? Ok... but it is no more comp. The we are at the base level of physics is the same thing as primitive matter, Peter Jones realness ingredient. Not at all. By definition of that realness ingredient, it cannot be tested, except trivially by being conscious, as all virtual being not implemented in physics are non-conscious in that Peter Jones theory. This makes Peter Jones realness neither confirmable nor refutable (and thus pseudo-religious somehow, or just a reification philosophical mistake). But in our case, that realness (defined by the satisfiability of comp + theaetetus + non-dream) is *refutable*. That is why I explained (to Brett Hall, notably) that a computationalist can test if he belongs to an (higher order, physical (in the comp sense)) simulation. If you program that simulation, and I am the simulated observer, I can derive the physical laws from comp (without doing any observation) and compare it to what I observe. If that fits, I can't conclude anything (and my 1p will overlap on reality and the simulation. I still derived the correct laws of physics), but if I find a discrepancy (and if you don't mess with my virtual brain so that I stay correct) then I can conclude that (~comp V ~Theaetetus V ~simulation). As long as you don't specify anything measurable that can be use to claim a discrepancy... you can't do that... I give an infinity of such specification. If my environment obeys to the physics Z1*, qZ1*, I can't conclude anything, but I will still derive the correct laws, either by introspection, or by observation. If my environment does not obey to Z1*, I am in an artificial simulation. That's not something you can measure, please be specific, what do you see as experiment we could do to prove or disprove comp, what measurement would be able to falsify comp, please be precise. Even F=m*a cannot be universal as I've shown, It might be. I think it is (I mean the Feynman generalisation, which is already close to comp-physics, but that's out of the topic). the fact that I could write a virtual world where it does not hold, imply that this virtual world exists in the UD deployement in an infinity of computations which interfere like our reality, no difference here... The computation interfere below the substitution level, but the artificial simulation with F≠ma, bring an artificial physics, which does not result from the interference below the subst. level. It must be below the substitution level as such world(s) also results from an infinity of computations... so it is below the substitution level, because the level is finite or comp is false. If qZ1* proves F=ma, and if my environment does not obeys F=ma, How would it proves that ? It can't, the proof is that there *can be* environments where F!=ma which also results from an infinity of computations. it will looks dreamy to me, No argument there proving that. I will see that I am not in a real (comp) physical reality, I will see the discrepancy. You still haven't show of what consist comp physical reality beside vague manyworld like prediction... so by the same point as our real world, a conscious being in my virtual world (if a UD exists, and in platonia of course it exists), then at the next step he will be out *my* virtual world but not the consistent extension of it where F=m*a still does not hold true... hence F=m*a cannot be universal in this context and cannot be use to invalidate comp... so as long as you can't say precisely what kind of
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic scenario requires that to be true. By point do you mean point in time? If so, are you saying that even for observers at different points in space, relativity theory itself provides a unique definition of which points on their worldlines are at the same point in time? This is obviously not true, since there is no preferred definition of simultaneity in relativity theory itself. You may think you can deduce the *need* for some true definition of simultaneity in order to make sense of relativity's claims, but objective simultaneity is clearly not a part of the theory itself in the sense that it won't appear in any textbooks on the theory. That is what I've continually pointed out to Jesse that's gone over his head, that relativity itself uses a common computational background for all frames. It hasn't gone over my head, I have responded over and over again by pointing out that any mathematical statement about relativity has an analogue in a purely geometric scenario involving things like tape measures on a 2D plane. Just as we can describe the twin paradox with different inertial frames that disagree about which pairs of events have the same t-coordinates, we can describe things on the plane using different Cartesian coordinate systems which disagree about which pairs of markings on the measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate. Does your ill-defined terminology of common computational background refers to the notion of a unique objective frame-independent analogue of same t coordinate (the analogue being 'same p-time')? If so, my point as always is that you *don't* similarly conclude that the different Cartesian coordinate systems in the measuring tape scenario require a common computational background in the sense of an objective coordinate-independent analogue of same y-coordinate. And if a perfectly analogous argument involving coordinate systems in space leads to a conclusion that even you would agree is erroneous, that implies there is something wrong with the logic of your argument involving frames in spacetime. Even though I've asked you over and over again whether you think there's any quantitative fact about SR and different frames' descriptions of the twin paradox scenario which DOESN'T have a direct analogue in the tape scenario, you've never given a yes-or-no answer to this question, let alone pointed to a specific quantitative fact you think has no analogue. From your continued ducking of this question, I guess you probably recognize on some level that this analogy is problematic for your position. If it didn't it couldn't properly describe relativistic scenarios from the separate frame dependent views of all involved observers. Do you think algebraic geometry (i.e. geometry where we describe shapes in the context of a 2D coordinate system) can't properly describe geometric scenarios from the separate views of all involved coordinate systems? This hidden and unstated assumption of relativity itself is the basis of p-time. If it's hidden and unstated than it isn't part of relativity theory itself in its standard textbook form. It's rather a conclusion that you draw about the implications of the theory. The dozen or so examples I've given to Jesse show how to compare different relativistic frames in a manner completely consistent with relativity But I've given my own example that shows that your assumptions about p-time lead to a direct contradiction. You objected to the idea that events which occur at the same point in spacetime must have the same p-time, which was one of the assumptions I used to derive a contradiction, but clearly you had misunderstood what I meant by same point in spacetime since in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/GZznkprLuo8Jyou said I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion of a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME. They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE. But as I explained in my response at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/6NoHUw_x0tsJ , same point in spacetime DOES always include the notion of same point in SPACE, this is always how I have used same point in spacetime and it's obvious this must be true from the operational definition I gave (how could the time for a light signal to reflect off the other observer and return approach zero if the distance wasn't approaching zero too?). So, now that I have clarified that to say events A and B happened at the same point in spacetime means that in any relativistic coordinate system they would have identical time coordinates AND identical spatial coordinates, would
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 2/13/2014 1:04 AM, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. This sounds like my sort of science! One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small... It's unfortunate that the white rabbit with the frock coat and pocket watch from Alice in Wonderland became shorthand for 'unreal things', and then was further shortened to just white rabbit since, in fact, white rabbits are quite common and kept as pets. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp, should then be amenable to test- using mice of course. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-13 18:07 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: hence F=ma cannot be universaly true if comp is true. So if you extract F= KmM/r^2 from comp, and you refute it ostensibly (by flying) then you can infer that either comp is false, or you are dreaming (or you are in a simulation, done, not by the UD, but implemented on the real physics which is not done by the UD but supervenes on the whole UD in a non computable). I think you can't conclude anything, because as I point out, any measure you made is geographical under comp hence no measure can invalidate it. I guess you mean any measurement I made is geographical. I agree that the making of the measurement is geographical, but what I measure might be physically universal, unless physics is only geography, but that is already refuted by comp, thanks to the non collapse of the modal logic brought by the intensional variants. Comp here already predicts that *there* is a physical part common to all geographies, and that is what I call physical laws, as the rest will be sort of contingencies. You are right that we don't test just comp, but comp + theaetetus + we are at the base level of physics (not dreaming or simulated at a higher level). OK? Ok... but it is no more comp. The we are at the base level of physics is the same thing as primitive matter, Peter Jones realness ingredient. Not at all. By definition of that realness ingredient, it cannot be tested, except trivially by being conscious, as all virtual being not implemented in physics are non-conscious in that Peter Jones theory. This makes Peter Jones realness neither confirmable nor refutable (and thus pseudo-religious somehow, or just a reification philosophical mistake). But in our case, that realness (defined by the satisfiability of comp + theaetetus + non-dream) is *refutable*. That is why I explained (to Brett Hall, notably) that a computationalist can test if he belongs to an (higher order, physical (in the comp sense)) simulation. If you program that simulation, and I am the simulated observer, I can derive the physical laws from comp (without doing any observation) and compare it to what I observe. If that fits, I can't conclude anything (and my 1p will overlap on reality and the simulation. I still derived the correct laws of physics), but if I find a discrepancy (and if you don't mess with my virtual brain so that I stay correct) then I can conclude that (~comp V ~Theaetetus V ~simulation). As long as you don't specify anything measurable that can be use to claim a discrepancy... you can't do that... I give an infinity of such specification. If my environment obeys to the physics Z1*, qZ1*, I can't conclude anything, but I will still derive the correct laws, either by introspection, or by observation. If my environment does not obey to Z1*, I am in an artificial simulation. That's not something you can measure, please be specific, what do you see as experiment we could do to prove or disprove comp, what measurement would be able to falsify comp, please be precise. Even F=m*a cannot be universal as I've shown, It might be. I think it is (I mean the Feynman generalisation, which is already close to comp-physics, but that's out of the topic). the fact that I could write a virtual world where it does not hold, imply that this virtual world exists in the UD deployement in an infinity of computations which interfere like our reality, no difference here... The computation interfere below the substitution level, but the artificial simulation with F≠ma, bring an artificial physics, which does not result from the interference below the subst. level. It must be below the substitution level as such world(s) also results from an infinity of computations... so it is below the substitution level, because the level is finite or comp is false. If qZ1* proves F=ma, and if my environment does not obeys F=ma, How would it proves that ? It can't, the proof is that there *can be* environments where F!=ma which also results from an infinity of computations. it will looks dreamy to me, No argument there proving that. I will see that I am not in a real (comp) physical reality, I will see the discrepancy. You still haven't show of what consist comp physical reality beside vague manyworld like prediction... so by the same point as our real world, a conscious being in my virtual world (if a UD exists, and in platonia of course it exists), then at the next step he will be out *my* virtual world but not
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. Your abacus example is A Propos to the points in my post. The important insight in my post is that all R-bits, that make up all the information that constitutes the current state of the universe, are identical. It is the RELATIONSHIPS of these R-bits, not the R-bits themselves that give us the H-numbers used in H-math. This is obvious from a proper understanding of binary numbers in particular, in which it is the bits that are clearly elemental, and all numbers are relationships of a single type of bit, rather than being elemental in themselves. H-math (and Bruno) assumes that these individual numbers are what is elemental and actually real and extant in reality. That there is some elemental thing called prime number 17 that is an actual fixed unalterable component of fundamental reality. I don't see anyway that makes sense, or is necessary. it confuses understanding of actual reality... What actually exists fundamentally, it seems to me, is a finite number of identical R-bits, rather than H-math numbers. It is unclear to what extent the R-math that actually computes reality in terms of these R-bits, needs any concepts like H-numbers, but to the extent it does, these are relationships, part of R-math, rather than elemental R-numbers themselves. R-numbers are just the set of all identical R-bits among which R-math can define the (small?) set of relationships it needs to compute actual reality. It is in this sense that I stated that all actual R-numbers are all just the identical R-bits which are just related and computed into all the information that constitutes the universe. in this sense then everything can be said to be composed of numbers=bits, and only of numbers=bits. Or more properly of numbers=bits and their relationships. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. I suspect that in this regard Bruno may have more insight, but superficially I agree with you. Just as an abacus can be used to perform H-Math functions, on a physical level, all that is happening is that beads are sliding to one side or another (R-Math?). I consider H-Math not to be limited to humans, but more along the lines of a Bruno-Platonic set of all possible groupings of quantitative patterns. As enormous as that UD is, it is still, in my view, only a language of theoretical relations, not a concrete presence in the universe. What I see with comp is that, if human quality of consciousness were a calendar, comp takes the R-Math of January and the H-Math of December and assumes that February through November will be filled in automatically. What I see instead is that February through November cannot be substituted with low level 1:1 comparisons or high level eternal schemas, but instead must be developed in real time through real experiences. There can be no skipping experiences, so that even a fish does not have the experience of a fish if it does not arise from a context of inheriting lifetimes from invertebrate ancestors. I suspect that these experiences are not available in any structures to be simulated or modeled. Craig Ordinal and cardinal number, and all their properties such as odd, even or prime are thus
Re: Modal logic 4 (was Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas).
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What's the definition of G*? G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the theorem of G, + the axiom: []A - A But is NOT close for the necessitation rule (can you see why that is impossible). This entails that G* has no Kripke semantics. But it has some semantics in term of infinite sequence of G-multiverse. By Solovay second theorem, G* axiomatizes what is true on the machine. Not just what is provable by the machine. G* minus G is not empty (it contains t, t, t, ... for example), and it axiomatizes the true but non provable modal (provability) sentences. It seems that the notation is inadequate since it depends on the accesibility relation: For example if the accessibility relation is T (for teleportation) then TM and TW may be false in Helsinki Why. Because teleportation isn't possible (so far as we know). Which brings up another point that bothers me: We are using [] as an operator necessary, and as possible as just symbols with a defined syntax, but in application we must say what they mean. What is necessary and what is possible are dependent on context; just as above you casually assume that teleportation is possible - even though you well know it isn't - just because you can write T. This is similar to my complaint about arithmetical realism; it is a sort of logical realism. We assume comp. They are both true, as H T M and H T W, if teleportation is the accessibility relation. while using F (for flying) would make FM and FW true. OK, but it is the same with T. No it's not. I can fly to Moscow. so in the eye of God, nothing changes. But G, which represents the machine ability, does not prove that equivalence, and this entails that []p and []p t will obeys different logics. OK? I'm not sure what you mean by obey different logics? I meant different modal logics. It just means that they have different theorems. They are different theories. For example G proves []([]p -p) - []p, but Z and X does not prove that. Z proves A for all A, but G does not prove that. S4Grz proves []p - p, but G does not prove that. S4Grz proves []([]p -p), but G does not prove that, etc. OK. Brent By incompleteness, despite G* proves the equivalence of []p, []p p, []p t, are equivalent, as G cannot prove that equivalence, they obeys different logic. They have different theorems. They are different theories, and that's why we have 8 different hypostases. That's how we got a theory of knowledge, a theory of observation, etc, all based on the same arithmetyical truth. That corresponds to the different person points of view. You get the 1p view by the p constraints, and the matter by the p or t constraints, and the non communicable parts, by the passage x to x* for each logic x. Bruno -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. To the question in your last paragraph. Yes, of course we assume originally synchronized clocks. Remember this is a thought experiment, and that is clearly possible if we assume it's done at rest relative to each other and then magically without acceleration (your instantaneous acceleration, which is also physically impossible, but has the exact same thought effect). So do you agree that given synchronized clocks, A and B in relative motion will still have synchronized clocks in their own frames to each other? I.e., that A will have the same reading on his own clock that B does on his own clock? Same reading using what definition of simultaneity? If you're talking about p-time simultaneity, then I don't agree, because I don't believe in p-time in the first place. If you're talking about the same reading using the definition of simultaneity assumed in each one's own rest frame, then I still don't agree. Say that two observers Alice and Bob have their clocks set to zero when they are at the same point in spacetime (i.e. if I use A to represent the event of Alice's clock reading 0, and B to represent the event of Bob's clock reading 0, then all frames will assign exactly the same space and time coordinates to B that they assign to A), and from that meeting at a common spatial location they move away from each other inertially at 0.6c, so in each one's frame the other has a time dilation factor of sqrt(1 - 0.6^2) = 0.8. Then in Alice's rest frame, the event of her clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Bob's clock reading 20. In Bob's rest frame, the event of his clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 20 (and in his frame the event of his clock reading 20 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 16). Do you disagree with these conclusions about frame-dependent simultaneity in SR? And do you also agree that when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's, AND they will both be the same age because of that? No, I don't agree. Using the numbers above, if Bob instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Alice when his clock reads 20, then he will now be at rest in Alice's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Alice's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Bob's clock reading 20. Likewise, if Alice instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Bob when her clock reads 20, she will now be at rest in Bob's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Bob's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Alice's clock reading 20. Do you disagree with these conclusions? How can Bob age 5 years because Alice instantly accelerated into his rest frame? I do not agree. This is just elementary relativity theory, nothing to do with p-time at all... Yes, it is elementary, and if you disagree with any of my statements about SR above then you need to go back and learn the basics of how SR math actually works. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime. If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point in space, and are the same point in p-time. But if you define same point in spacetime by your reflected light test then yes they are at the same point in p-time. But they still have different ages, different clock times. As for the rest of your post you have a remarkable ability to move the goal posts during the game! The whole point of assuming an INSTANTANEOUS acceleration to stop the relative motion is that instantaneous acceleration produces NO actual physical effect. It obviously can't because instantaneous acceleration is IMPOSSIBLE. It's a thought experiment device designed NOT to produce any effect, so that only the effect of the relative motion can be studied. It's functionally the same as my magical stopping of relative motion. So, given that, my analysis is correct, and yours is wrong, because you seem to think a physically impossible acceleration is producing some actual acceleration effect which is not possible. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:59:43 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion of a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME. They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE, Ah, it's clear you've misunderstood me then. My definition of same point in spacetime ALWAYS means that the events happen at the same point in space, no exceptions. Not sure how you could possibly imagine otherwise given my operational definition(s), and given that I specifically explained that all spatial coordinates of the two events are the same as well as their time coordinates if they occur at the same point in spacetime. But now that I've made that clear, do you agree that events that occur at the same point in spacetime must occur at the same point in p-time? but every observer is ALWAYS at the same point in p-TIME because there is ONLY one current point in p-time across the entire universe. I never talked about whether observers are at the same point in p-time, only events. And as I've told you before, I'm asking about deciding in retrospect whether two events occurred at the same point in p-time, so I'm not just talking about currently happening events (which are the only ones you'd say actually exist I assume). Also you have a basic misunderstanding of relativity theory in your example. In NON-accelerated relative motion there is no actual age difference or time dilation between the comoving (OWN) clocks of the two observers. A's OWN clock and B's OWN clock both read exactly the same t values. A's t = B's t', and there are no actual age differences. No relativity textbook will agree with you on that, time dilation is perfectly well-defined for purely inertial observers. And the phrase actual age difference is just meaningless unless the observers get together and compare clocks at the same point in spacetime--for observers separated in space there *is* no actual age difference in relativity theory, only the age difference as judged in different frames, which use different definitions of simultaneity. You seem to be confusing your own theories about p-time for mainstream relativity theory. This is basic relativity theory. It is only the OTHER clock that APPEARS to be running slow to both A and B, but their own clocks are running at the exact same rate. In each one's rest frame the other is running slow, and neither frame is more correct than the other. But there is no objective truth that the are running at the exact same rate, nor is there any objective truth that they run at different rates in examples involving acceleration; a comparison of rates is simply an intrinsically frame-dependent notion, there is no well-defined way to define a frame-independent truth of the matter in relativity theory. This other clock view is an illusion of relative motion that ceases with the relative motion with NO actual age differences. Huh? If two twins are moving apart inertially, then if either twin accelerates instantaneously to instantly come to rest relative to the other twin, there WILL be an age difference in the frame where the two twins are now at rest. For example, if twin B is moving apart from twin A at 0.8c, and twin B suddenly comes to rest with respect to twin A when twin B's clock shows 6 years have passed since departure, then immediately afterwards in the frame where they are now both at rest, twin B's clock will show 6 years have passed since departure while twin A's clock will show 10 years have passed since departure. These
Re: Block Universes
Richard, That's my point exactly. He can't. See my response just posted explaining that in detail. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:46:18 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. To the question in your last paragraph. Yes, of course we assume originally synchronized clocks. Remember this is a thought experiment, and that is clearly possible if we assume it's done at rest relative to each other and then magically without acceleration (your instantaneous acceleration, which is also physically impossible, but has the exact same thought effect). So do you agree that given synchronized clocks, A and B in relative motion will still have synchronized clocks in their own frames to each other? I.e., that A will have the same reading on his own clock that B does on his own clock? Same reading using what definition of simultaneity? If you're talking about p-time simultaneity, then I don't agree, because I don't believe in p-time in the first place. If you're talking about the same reading using the definition of simultaneity assumed in each one's own rest frame, then I still don't agree. Say that two observers Alice and Bob have their clocks set to zero when they are at the same point in spacetime (i.e. if I use A to represent the event of Alice's clock reading 0, and B to represent the event of Bob's clock reading 0, then all frames will assign exactly the same space and time coordinates to B that they assign to A), and from that meeting at a common spatial location they move away from each other inertially at 0.6c, so in each one's frame the other has a time dilation factor of sqrt(1 - 0.6^2) = 0.8. Then in Alice's rest frame, the event of her clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Bob's clock reading 20. In Bob's rest frame, the event of his clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 20 (and in his frame the event of his clock reading 20 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 16). Do you disagree with these conclusions about frame-dependent simultaneity in SR? And do you also agree that when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's, AND they will both be the same age because of that? No, I don't agree. Using the numbers above, if Bob instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Alice when his clock reads 20, then he will now be at rest in Alice's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Alice's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Bob's clock reading 20. Likewise, if Alice instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Bob when her clock reads 20, she will now be at rest in Bob's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Bob's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Alice's clock reading 20. Do you disagree with these conclusions? How can Bob age 5 years because Alice instantly accelerated into his rest frame? I do not agree. This is just elementary relativity theory, nothing to do with p-time at all... Yes, it is elementary, and if you disagree with any of my statements about SR above then you need to go back and learn the basics of how SR math actually works. Jesse -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. To the question in your last paragraph. Yes, of course we assume originally synchronized clocks. Remember this is a thought experiment, and that is clearly possible if we assume it's done at rest relative to each other and then magically without acceleration (your instantaneous acceleration, which is also physically impossible, but has the exact same thought effect). So do you agree that given synchronized clocks, A and B in relative motion will still have synchronized clocks in their own frames to each other? I.e., that A will have the same reading on his own clock that B does on his own clock? Same reading using what definition of simultaneity? If you're talking about p-time simultaneity, then I don't agree, because I don't believe in p-time in the first place. If you're talking about the same reading using the definition of simultaneity assumed in each one's own rest frame, then I still don't agree. Say that two observers Alice and Bob have their clocks set to zero when they are at the same point in spacetime (i.e. if I use A to represent the event of Alice's clock reading 0, and B to represent the event of Bob's clock reading 0, then all frames will assign exactly the same space and time coordinates to B that they assign to A), and from that meeting at a common spatial location they move away from each other inertially at 0.6c, so in each one's frame the other has a time dilation factor of sqrt(1 - 0.6^2) = 0.8. Then in Alice's rest frame, the event of her clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Bob's clock reading 20. In Bob's rest frame, the event of his clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 20 (and in his frame the event of his clock reading 20 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 16). Do you disagree with these conclusions about frame-dependent simultaneity in SR? And do you also agree that when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's, AND they will both be the same age because of that? No, I don't agree. Using the numbers above, if Bob instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Alice when his clock reads 20, then he will now be at rest in Alice's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Alice's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Bob's clock reading 20. Likewise, if Alice instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Bob when her clock reads 20, she will now be at rest in Bob's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Bob's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Alice's clock reading 20. Do you disagree with these conclusions? This is just elementary relativity theory, nothing to do with p-time at all... Yes, it is elementary, and if you disagree with any of my statements about SR above then you need to go back and learn the basics of how SR math actually works. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
MODAL 5 (was Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Liz, and others,
On 13 Feb 2014, at 10:04, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just
explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from
inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that
comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead
(in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the
flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white
rabbit in nature.
This sounds like my sort of science!
It is the scientist sort of science, yes.
One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small...
Unfortunately, in the *realist* fairy tales, sometimes you don't have
the magic wand, nor magic pills, and you have to empty an ocean with a
tea spoon, if not a sieve, and be confronted with ten thousand
Monsters if not grin without cat!
We say that reality kick back, and it it is an euphemism. And that
explains probably why science asks for some amount of works. Even
tedious one!
Well, just to prepare you for 8, well, no, 7 exercises.
And more official definitions.
Definition: A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is a non empty set W, with a
binary relation R.
That's all you need to know, about a Kripke multiverse.
Conventionally we use the greek letter for its element, alpha,
beta, ... and we call them world.
OK?
Exercise: give examples of the simplest Kripke multiverses possible.
Solution:
W cannot be empty (by the definition above), so the simplest one is
probably the singleton {alpha}, with the empty binary relation---alpha
does not access to any world, not even itself.
Perhaps the next simplest one is {alpha}, with alpha R alpha. Alpha
access to itself.
OK?
But Kripke multiverse can be illuminated. By this I mean that we can
associate a truth value (t, f, or 1, 0 ...) to all propositional
letters, and this for each world. In english: we just illuminate the
multiverse by telling the truth value of the atomic propositions (p,
q, r, ...) in each world. (keep in mind that the goal is to find
counterexample in modal reasoning).
We stipulate also that all worlds obeys classical propositional logic
(CPL).
In particular, if A is true at alpha, and if B is true at alpha, then
(A B) is true at alpha. For example. You cannot have a world with A
false, but (A B) true. Etc. OK?
Let us consider only one propositional letters. As a matter of fact,
although the possible truth value of []p does not depend on p, it is
independent of the value of q, so, to start, we can play with only one
propositional letter, as most formula have only one propositional
letters occurring in them.
But how to decide the truth of a modal formula, with occurrence of []p
and p?
All you have to keep in mind is that (Kripke semantics):
[]p is true in alpha = p is true in all the worlds accessible from
alpha
(dually, you have already seen this)
p is true in alpha == there is at least one world accessible from
alpha where p is true.
OK?
It is really the same semantics as Leibniz, but relativized on each
relatively accessible worlds.
This determines the truth value of []p and p in the illuminated
multiverse. To see if []p is true in a world, just look at those world
accessed by alpha, and see if p is true at them. If alpha access ten
worlds, you have to look at those ten worlds. If alpha access 0
worlds, you have zero verification to do, making the truth of []p
vacuously true (or use []p = ~~p).
OK?
Now, ask any question if anything remains unclear up to here, before
trying the 7) exercises.
But here is the exercise (we work with only one propositional letter)
First illuminate the two simplest multiverses above, that is {alpha}
with no accessibility relation, and {alpha} with alpha R alpha. That
should not be long, given that we restrict ourself to only one
propositional variable p, and have only one world.
Which of those propositions are true of false in alpha, in the
illuminated simplest multiverses.
And which one are law (meaning true in all worlds, but true for all
valuation of p, that is valid with A = p, but also with A = ~p)
1) []A - A
2) []A - [][]A
3) A - []A
4) []A - A
5)A - []A
6) A - ~[]A
7) []([]A - A) - []A
8) []([](A - []A) - A) - A
Let me solve one case, to illustrate. Let us look at []A - A, in
the illuminated multiverse {alpha}, with empty R, and with p true in
alpha.
Well, what about []A?
Alpha is a cul-de-sac world, so we have seen that []A must be true (if
not ~A has to be true), so []A is true and in particular []p is true
(whatever the value of p is). What about A ? well this say that
there is some beta accessible from alpha in which A is true. But alpha
is a cul-de-sac world, so there is no such world, and so A is false,
whatever A is
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:39:23 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. To the question in your last paragraph. Yes, of course we assume originally synchronized clocks. Remember this is a thought experiment, and that is clearly possible if we assume it's done at rest relative to each other and then magically without acceleration (your instantaneous acceleration, which is also physically impossible, but has the exact same thought effect). So do you agree that given synchronized clocks, A and B in relative motion will still have synchronized clocks in their own frames to each other? I.e., that A will have the same reading on his own clock that B does on his own clock? Same reading using what definition of simultaneity? If you're talking about p-time simultaneity, then I don't agree, because I don't believe in p-time in the first place. If you're talking about the same reading using the definition of simultaneity assumed in each one's own rest frame, then I still don't agree. Say that two observers Alice and Bob have their clocks set to zero when they are at the same point in spacetime (i.e. if I use A to represent the event of Alice's clock reading 0, and B to represent the event of Bob's clock reading 0, then all frames will assign exactly the same space and time coordinates to B that they assign to A), and from that meeting at a common spatial location they move away from each other inertially at 0.6c, so in each one's frame the other has a time dilation factor of sqrt(1 - 0.6^2) = 0.8. Then in Alice's rest frame, the event of her clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Bob's clock reading 20. In Bob's rest frame, the event of his clock reading 25 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 20 (and in his frame the event of his clock reading 20 would be simultaneous with the event of Alice's clock reading 16). Do you disagree with these conclusions about frame-dependent simultaneity in SR? And do you also agree that when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's, AND they will both be the same age because of that? No, I don't agree. Using the numbers above, if Bob instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Alice when his clock reads 20, then he will now be at rest in Alice's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Alice's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Bob's clock reading 20. Likewise, if Alice instantaneously accelerates to come to rest relative to Bob when her clock reads 20, she will now be at rest in Bob's rest frame, and it'll still be true in this frame that the event of Bob's clock reading 25 is simultaneous with Alice's clock reading 20. Do you disagree with these conclusions? This is just elementary relativity theory, nothing to do with p-time at all... Yes, it is elementary, and if you disagree with any of my statements about SR above then you need to go back and learn the basics of how SR math actually works. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an infinitesimally small neighborhood of spacetime around them, and that if the laws of physics are expressed in the coordinates of this frame, they will look just like the corresponding equations in flat SR spacetime, though only in the first-order approximation to the equations (i.e. eliminating all derivatives beyond the first derivatives). See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfMWbQB2dLIClpg=PP1pg=PA52 and http://books.google.com/books?id=95Frgz-grhgClpg=PP1pg=PA481 and http://books.google.com/books?id=jjBMw0KFtZgClpg=PP1pg=PA5 Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that no relativity textbook will discuss any frame independent method to determine simultaneity? Also, do you agree that your statement when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's would NOT be true if we were comparing readings in their common rest frame after one observer magically undergoes an instantaneous acceleration to come to rest relative to the other? If you disagree, please tell me if you disagree with the specific numbers I gave (for example, if Bob instantaneously accelerates at age 20 to come to rest relative to Alice, then in their mutual rest frame immediately after the acceleration, Alice's clock reads 25 simultaneously with Bob's reading 20). And if you agree with that, does this mean that the answer for frame-independent simultaneity that is given by relativity theory according to you is actually DIFFERENT than the answer given by p-time simultaneity, since you said before that for two clocks at rest relative to each other, readings which are simultaneous in their common rest frame should be simultaneous in p-time? Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Hi, You're amazing of patience... but I can predict the end, Edgar won't acknowledge anything because he is convince he got it all about relativity, where clearly he doesn't have a clue... he is the perfect example of what crackpotery is... he thinks that flooding a list with BS, will render the BS true. Good luck, but it would be amazing the prediction will turn to be false. Regards, Quentin 2014-02-13 19:22 GMT+01:00 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic scenario requires that to be true. By point do you mean point in time? If so, are you saying that even for observers at different points in space, relativity theory itself provides a unique definition of which points on their worldlines are at the same point in time? This is obviously not true, since there is no preferred definition of simultaneity in relativity theory itself. You may think you can deduce the *need* for some true definition of simultaneity in order to make sense of relativity's claims, but objective simultaneity is clearly not a part of the theory itself in the sense that it won't appear in any textbooks on the theory. That is what I've continually pointed out to Jesse that's gone over his head, that relativity itself uses a common computational background for all frames. It hasn't gone over my head, I have responded over and over again by pointing out that any mathematical statement about relativity has an analogue in a purely geometric scenario involving things like tape measures on a 2D plane. Just as we can describe the twin paradox with different inertial frames that disagree about which pairs of events have the same t-coordinates, we can describe things on the plane using different Cartesian coordinate systems which disagree about which pairs of markings on the measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate. Does your ill-defined terminology of common computational background refers to the notion of a unique objective frame-independent analogue of same t coordinate (the analogue being 'same p-time')? If so, my point as always is that you *don't* similarly conclude that the different Cartesian coordinate systems in the measuring tape scenario require a common computational background in the sense of an objective coordinate-independent analogue of same y-coordinate. And if a perfectly analogous argument involving coordinate systems in space leads to a conclusion that even you would agree is erroneous, that implies there is something wrong with the logic of your argument involving frames in spacetime. Even though I've asked you over and over again whether you think there's any quantitative fact about SR and different frames' descriptions of the twin paradox scenario which DOESN'T have a direct analogue in the tape scenario, you've never given a yes-or-no answer to this question, let alone pointed to a specific quantitative fact you think has no analogue. From your continued ducking of this question, I guess you probably recognize on some level that this analogy is problematic for your position. If it didn't it couldn't properly describe relativistic scenarios from the separate frame dependent views of all involved observers. Do you think algebraic geometry (i.e. geometry where we describe shapes in the context of a 2D coordinate system) can't properly describe geometric scenarios from the separate views of all involved coordinate systems? This hidden and unstated assumption of relativity itself is the basis of p-time. If it's hidden and unstated than it isn't part of relativity theory itself in its standard textbook form. It's rather a conclusion that you draw about the implications of the theory. The dozen or so examples I've given to Jesse show how to compare different relativistic frames in a manner completely consistent with relativity But I've given my own example that shows that your assumptions about p-time lead to a direct contradiction. You objected to the idea that events which occur at the same point in spacetime must have the same p-time, which was one of the assumptions I used to derive a contradiction, but clearly you had misunderstood what I meant by same point in spacetime since in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/GZznkprLuo8Jyou said I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion of a same point in SPACEtime is not the same as a same point in p-TIME. They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE. But as I explained in my response at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/6NoHUw_x0tsJ, same point in spacetime DOES always include the notion of same
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, You still don't get it. There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to describe a single scenario from both observer frames, one does get a 1:1 correspondence of which clock times of A's comoving clock corresponds to which clock times of B's comoving clock. I've explained that method in detail with nearly a dozen examples. You are still stuck in some particular individual frame, but relativity specifies both of the 2 frames for every scenario, one for each of the 2 observers. We are just spinning our wheels if you can't make the cognitive leap to understand this... You keep fixating on your tape measure example which I've answered 2 or 3 times. It has nothing to do with p-time... No, you have not established ANY contradiction in either my p-time theory, OR between p-time and relativity. Your final argument is ambiguous. But if in any relativistic coordinate system two events A and B would have identical (clock) time coordinates AND identical spatial coordinates AND assuming originally synchronized clocks, then certainly A and B occur in the same p-time. They are at the same place at the same p-time. If you don't assume originally synchronized clocks then A could just happen to pass through that point in space earlier than than B with the same clock reading that A had when he got there later in actual p-time. If you originally synchronize clocks I don't see how that could happen. The real test, of course, is whether A and B are at the same point in space at the actual same time as tested by their ability to shake hands and compare watches. Doesn't matter what their clocks read or their actual ages are if they can do that... Though somehow I suspect you've got some other understanding of this ready to spring! Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:22:56 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Liz, 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic scenario requires that to be true. By point do you mean point in time? If so, are you saying that even for observers at different points in space, relativity theory itself provides a unique definition of which points on their worldlines are at the same point in time? This is obviously not true, since there is no preferred definition of simultaneity in relativity theory itself. You may think you can deduce the *need* for some true definition of simultaneity in order to make sense of relativity's claims, but objective simultaneity is clearly not a part of the theory itself in the sense that it won't appear in any textbooks on the theory. That is what I've continually pointed out to Jesse that's gone over his head, that relativity itself uses a common computational background for all frames. It hasn't gone over my head, I have responded over and over again by pointing out that any mathematical statement about relativity has an analogue in a purely geometric scenario involving things like tape measures on a 2D plane. Just as we can describe the twin paradox with different inertial frames that disagree about which pairs of events have the same t-coordinates, we can describe things on the plane using different Cartesian coordinate systems which disagree about which pairs of markings on the measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate. Does your ill-defined terminology of common computational background refers to the notion of a unique objective frame-independent analogue of same t coordinate (the analogue being 'same p-time')? If so, my point as always is that you *don't* similarly conclude that the different Cartesian coordinate systems in the measuring tape scenario require a common computational background in the sense of an objective coordinate-independent analogue of same y-coordinate. And if a perfectly analogous argument involving coordinate systems in space leads to a conclusion that even you would agree is erroneous, that implies there is something wrong with the logic of your argument involving frames in spacetime. Even though I've asked you over and over again whether you think there's any quantitative fact about SR and different frames' descriptions of the twin paradox scenario which DOESN'T have a direct analogue in the tape scenario, you've never given a yes-or-no answer to this question, let alone pointed to a specific quantitative fact you think has no analogue. From your continued ducking of this question, I guess you probably recognize on some level that this analogy is problematic for your position. If it didn't it couldn't properly describe relativistic scenarios from the separate frame dependent
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my friend, is frame independence Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by instantaneous acceleration. There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual physical effect. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that no relativity textbook will discuss any frame independent method to determine simultaneity? Also, do you agree that your statement when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's would NOT be true if we were comparing readings in their common rest frame after one observer magically undergoes an instantaneous acceleration to come to rest relative to the other? If you disagree, please tell me if you disagree with the specific numbers I gave (for example, if Bob instantaneously accelerates at age 20 to come to rest relative to Alice, then in their mutual rest frame immediately after the acceleration, Alice's clock reads 25 simultaneously with Bob's reading 20). And if you agree with that, does this mean that the answer for frame-independent simultaneity that is given by relativity theory according to you is actually DIFFERENT than the answer given by p-time simultaneity, since you said before that for two clocks at rest relative to each other, readings which are simultaneous in their common rest frame should be simultaneous in p-time? Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Jesse, Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is equivalent to acceleration. So please take this into consideration and respond. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an infinitesimally small neighborhood of spacetime around them, and that if the laws of physics are expressed in the coordinates of this frame, they will look just like the corresponding equations in flat SR spacetime, though only in the first-order approximation to the equations (i.e. eliminating all derivatives beyond the first derivatives). See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfMWbQB2dLIClpg=PP1pg=PA52 and http://books.google.com/books?id=95Frgz-grhgClpg=PP1pg=PA481 and http://books.google.com/books?id=jjBMw0KFtZgClpg=PP1pg=PA5 Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime. If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point in space, and are the same point in p-time. But if you define same point in spacetime by your reflected light test then yes they are at the same point in p-time. But they still have different ages, different clock times. I mean same point in spacetime in terms of the coordinate times and positions assigned by a background grid of coordinate clocks and rulers of the type I have discussed with you many times before. And in SR, when two observers' worldlines converge the same position and time coordinate in any coordinate system, this IMPLIES that they must also satisfy the operational definition I gave (if you disagree, and think it is possible in SR for two worldlines to cross through the same position and time coordinate but NOT to satisfy the operational definition I gave, please elaborate). In my Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJthat demonstrates a contradiction in your ideas about p-time, take same point in spacetime in either of the above senses, since they are physically equivalent. Points 2 and 4 are based on the idea that if two clock readings happen at the same point in spacetime in these senses, they must be at the same moment of p-time. For example, in point 4, the event of Bart's clock reading T=0 happens at coordinates x=25 light years, t=20 years in the single coordinate system I am using to describe events, and likewise the event of Bob's clock reading T=20 happens at coordinates x=25 light years and t=20 years in this coordinate system. If there was a coordinate clock at the x=25 marking on a ruler, then when that clock read t=20, both Bart and Bob would be right next to the clock at that moment, with Bart's clock reading T=0 and Bob's reading T=20. Since these readings all happen at the same point in space, naturally if Bob and Bart were bouncing light signals off each other they would satisfy the operational definition I gave too. So, can you please over the example and tell me if you disagree with any aspect of it (either my predictions for what readings should occur when and where according to SR, or my conclusions about what this implies for p-time simultaneity), or simply find some aspect confusing or in need of clarification? Since as I've said, I'm convinced this example shows a basic contradiction in your assumptions about how p-time works, it really would be helpful if you would address it. As for the rest of your post you have a remarkable ability to move the goal posts during the game! The whole point of assuming an INSTANTANEOUS acceleration to stop the relative motion is that instantaneous acceleration produces NO actual physical effect. It obviously can't because instantaneous acceleration is IMPOSSIBLE. It's a thought experiment device designed NOT to produce any effect, so that only the effect of the relative motion can be studied. Are you saying that a difference in readings is an effect while identical readings is no effect, so the mere fact that instantaneous acceleration should produce no effect implies the readings should be identical afterwards? If so this is just a confused argument-by-word-definitions, one could just as easily (and just as incorrectly) define a spatial separation to be an effect and no spatial separation to be no effect, and therefore conclude that if Bob instantaneously accelerates when he is 200 light years away from Alice, he should suddenly find himself back at the same position as Alice with zero spatial separation. In any case, instantaneous acceleration isn't just a meaningless impossible scenario, it's actually used all the time in relativity textbooks to simplify calculations (for example, see http://books.google.com/books?id=vDWvUBiNgNkCpg=PA180dq=%22instantaneous+acceleration%22+%22twin+paradox%22hl=ensa=Xei=GB_9Uq-ELfTEsAScgYGIBwved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepageq=%22instantaneous%20acceleration%22%20%22twin%20paradox%22f=false). You can understand it as a shorthand way of talking about a LIMIT (in the calculus sense) of a series of cases where the acceleration is made briefer and briefer, but where the final relative velocity after acceleration (zero, in this example) is the same in each case. Or you can just consider it as an approximation--if the example deals with scales of years and light-years, then if the acceleration only lasts a few seconds it'll be a perfectly good approximation to treat it as instantaneous. Either way, relativity does tell us what the ages would be in their mutual rest frame after the instantaneous acceleration, and they would NOT be identical. Jesse On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:59:43 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed,
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 2/13/2014 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, What's CPL? Classical Predicate Logic? then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F= KmM/r^2 are laws, that is are true, not only everywhere, but even in all branch of the universal wave. But that can be explained from Noether's theorem + our insistence that whatever we call a law should be translation invariant. In other words we pick out what is translation invariant - and the rest is geography. But comp justifies this: the modalities of
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 13 Feb 2014, at 09:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-13 9:32 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 12 Feb 2014, at 21:47, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 09:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: That doesn't follow. If there are disjoint worlds, as contemplated in some versions of cosmology, they may have different physics. Nice, comp predicts that this is impossible, although I can agree this is a matter of semantics, as I define a physical laws to be true for all universal machines, so disjoint worlds will have only different geographies. So you're saying that only those worlds with observers in exist, according to comp? Not completely, as you will still have all the computations approximating all possible geographical reality, including those without observers, and in that sense, those realities exist, but they might not be first person plural sharable, and if you could explore one, they can violate our physics below our substitution level (which witnesses the infinitely many computations, something that one computation can only approximate). Your question can depend if a quantum universal dovetailer win the a measure battle, so that the computations going through you states are asspciated to some precise subdovetailing, for example. So the physics they observe will necessarily be such that it allows them to exist? (In other words, the Strong Anthropic Principle ?) Is that not tautological? If so, how do you account for us being able to observe an early universe in which there were apparently no observers? Or do we as obsverers create it (somehow) ? We select them. See above. You seem to be making your claim a tautology by saying whatever your theory produces is physics, even if it's not any physics we know of. That makes it impossible to test. Why, the physics we get is non trivial. It is as much testable than evolution. It explains where the laws of physics come from, and much more. It is extremely testable, given that it gives the laws, and it is enough to find one natural phenomenon contradicting Z1* or X1* to refute comp (+ Theaetetus). But this needs more on AUDA, so let us not anticipate everything too much quickly. You jump from step 3 to step 8, and then to AUDA. Well, it is interesting, but like Liz said, we have to do the dinner and that kind of things of life, if we want to continue the discussion in decent condition. I must admit I got that impression - thath the answer was something like comp predicts whatever physics we've got! This is false. A priori comp predicts white noise and white rabbits. But thanks to Gödel, we know that self-reference put constraints on what we can observe ([]p t), so comp(+Theaetetus) is not refuted yet, and is the only theory explaining where matter and consciousness comes from. Comp predicts one precise physics, in a way which indeed does not depend at all from what we observe in nature (we assume *only* comp!), and so we can compare the comp-physics with nature physics, and test comp. I don't understand how you would disprove comp like that... because whatever you could measure about reality could just be geographical and so comp is always in accordance with whatever measure... if not, could you precisely point on a specific thing that would invalidate comp ? If all the hypostases (points of view) modalities were collapsing into CPL, then comp would predict that, indeed, there are no physical laws, and everything would be geographical. This would predict that we can travel in the universe/multiverse, and observe anything logically consistent. This would made Smullyan correct when he says, in Forever Undecided (page 47): The physical sciences are interested in the state of affairs that holds for the actual world, whereas pure mathematics and logic study all possible state of affairs. Now, we could criticize this already from observation. Indeed it is those observations which led us to believe that there are physical laws, and laws means that something is true everywhere in our universe (or should means that, if that set is not empty). Indeed we believe that F=ma, or F=
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You still don't get it. There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to describe a single scenario from both observer frames, one does get a 1:1 correspondence of which clock times of A's comoving clock corresponds to which clock times of B's comoving clock. I've explained that method in detail with nearly a dozen examples. You've never explained it with a single NUMERICAL example in which you actually show the specific relativistic equations you think can be used to show this, only abstract verbal descriptions which just make assertions about how the 1:1 correspondence works (like the assertion that if both observers move inertially after synchronizing their clocks at a common point in space, their clock readings will continue to be identical in the 1:1 correspondence). In none of your posts have you actually given a mathematical derivation to justify these assertions using textbook equations of relativity. You also didn't answer my question about whether you agree the existence of such an objective 1:1 correspondence is an original conclusion you have made that all mainstream physicists have missed, or if you claim it's actually recognized by physicists. Can you please address this? You are still stuck in some particular individual frame, but relativity specifies both of the 2 frames for every scenario, one for each of the 2 observers. I have considered both frames. In my example, I specifically talked about which events would be simultaneous in Alice's rest frame (where Alice being 25 is simultaneous with Bob being 20), AND which would be simultaneous in Bob's rest frame (where Bob being 25 is simultaneous with Alice being 20, and likewise Bob being 20 is simultaneous with Alice being 16). You keep fixating on your tape measure example which I've answered 2 or 3 times. It has nothing to do with p-time... As I've told you several times already, the point of the measuring tape example is to discount the notion that there is an ARGUMENT for p-time which doesn't just assume the existence of p-time from the start, but rather uses observations about how relativity itself works to show that there is a NEED for p-time. My point is that for any observation about how relativity itself works in the context of the twin paradox example--i.e. observations which do NOT assume p-time from the start--there is an analogous observation about how Cartesian geometry works in the context of the measuring tape example. If you want to say yes, I agree there's no argument that shows why p-time is needed (or even an argument that shows why an objective 1:1 correspondence is needed) that is based solely on reasoning about the quantitative facts that would appear in a standard textbook analysis of the twin paradox, then I will drop this line of discussion about measuring tapes. On the other hand, if you do think there's such an argument, then it's quite relevant to ask whether you think any of these quantitative facts that would appear in a standard textbook analysis of the twin paradox that don't have directly analogies in how Cartesian geometry could be used to analyze the measuring tape. So, please just tell me which of these statements A) or B) better matches your view: A) There's is NOT an argument that shows why p-time is needed (or even an argument that shows why an objective 1:1 correspondence is needed) that is based solely on reasoning about the quantitative facts that would appear in a standard textbook analysis of the twin paradox, without assuming objective simultaneity as a starting premise A) There IS an argument that shows why p-time is needed (or even an argument that shows why an objective 1:1 correspondence is needed) that is based solely on reasoning about the quantitative facts that would appear in a standard textbook analysis of the twin paradox, without assuming objective simultaneity as a starting premise No, you have not established ANY contradiction in either my p-time theory, OR between p-time and relativity. But I have--you just seem to be confused about the meaning of one of the assumptions I made in that example. In any case, you have never directly responded to that example to point out which specific conclusion 1-4 about p-time simultaneity you would disagree with (or if you actually disagreed with any of my statements about what SR would predict for clock readings and positions of each observer at various time and space coordinates). Your final argument is ambiguous. But if in any relativistic coordinate system two events A and B would have identical (clock) time coordinates AND identical spatial coordinates AND assuming originally synchronized clocks, then certainly A and B occur in the same p-time. They are at the same place at the same p-time. If you don't assume originally
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my friend, is frame independence Sure, it gives equations for both frames, but you haven't given any sort of mathematical derivation to show how this leads to the conclusion that there must be a unique true definition of simultaneity, or what that definition would be. In Cartesian geometry we can have different coordinate systems which have different equations for which markings on different measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate, but you DON'T conclude that this implies there must be a unique true way of defining something like y-equality. Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by instantaneous acceleration. There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual physical effect. See my other recent post where I explained that instantaneous acceleration can be understood either in terms of the limit as a finite acceleration period gets briefer and briefer, or just an approximation for an acceleration that's very brief compared to the timescales that we are considering in the problem. Jesse On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that no relativity textbook will discuss any frame independent method to determine simultaneity? Also, do you agree that your statement when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's would NOT be true if we were comparing readings in their common rest frame after one observer magically undergoes an instantaneous acceleration to come to rest relative to the other? If you disagree, please tell me if you disagree with the specific numbers I gave (for example, if Bob instantaneously accelerates at age 20 to come to rest relative to Alice, then in their mutual rest frame immediately after the acceleration, Alice's clock reads 25 simultaneously with Bob's reading 20). And if you agree with that, does this mean that the answer for frame-independent simultaneity that is given by relativity theory according to you is actually DIFFERENT than the answer given by p-time simultaneity, since you said before that for two clocks at rest relative to each other, readings which are simultaneous in their common rest frame should be simultaneous in p-time? Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. That doesn't work, I'm afraid, which is why we both asked the question. Originally you said you can stop the experiment at any point... (and check the clocks of the observers). That implies you mean a *point in time*- and a point in time which will be simultaneous for all observers. Hence if you are working within relativity theory you must be referring to a hyperplane of simultaneity. So our question remains unanswered. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is equivalent to acceleration. Suppose the observer who's not moving on a geodesic path (call her Alice) passes through the small spacetime neighborhood where the observer who IS moving on a geodesic path (call him Bob) is defining his local inertial frame (Bob's geodesic path can either by a free-fall path through curved spacetime, or inertial motion in flat spacetime, since both qualify as geodesics in their respective spacetimes). As Alice passes through this region, she performs some experiment and notes the physical result. Whatever physical elements are involved in this experiment, Bob can analyze them too, and he should predict the SAME result even if his analysis is a bit different--for example, if Alice is standing on a platform and lets go of a ball, the ball will hit the platform, from Alice's point of view this is due to a gravitational force and from Bob's point of view this is due to the platform accelerating up towards the ball, but either way the actual prediction is the same. So, to say that Bob should observe the same results of any local experiment (provided he is approximating everything to first order) regardless of whether he's moving inertially in flat spacetime or free-falling in gravity is physically equivalent to saying Alice should observe the same results of any local experiment (again ignoring second-order and higher effects) regardless of whether she's accelerating through Bob's region in flat spacetime, or passing through his region because he's in free-fall while she is not (say, she's standing on a platform resting on a pole embedded in the Earth below, while Bob falls past her). Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 14 February 2014 07:26, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The duplication of human beings, such a significant prediction of comp, should then be amenable to test- using mice of course. I don't think comp predicts this. Bruno only uses it as a thought experiment. However if this is a prediction of comp, we might be able to test it if we can find a way to test the MWI, which also predicts this. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level. If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory. Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of comp). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Jeez. Roll on solar power. On 14 February 2014 04:01, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/ liter NHK http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140213_22.html, Feb. 13, 2014: *Record cesium level in Fukushima plant groundwater* -- [Tepco] says water samples taken from a newly-dug well contained the highest levels of radioactive cesium detected so far in groundwater at the site [...] the record levels suggest that the leakage point could be near the well. [...] 600 times the government standard for radioactive wastewater that can be released into the sea. It is more than 30,000 times the level of cesium 137 found in water samples taken from another observation well to the north last week. [...] [Tepco has] yet to determine where the leak originates. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). On 14 February 2014 09:33, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is equivalent to acceleration. Suppose the observer who's not moving on a geodesic path (call her Alice) passes through the small spacetime neighborhood where the observer who IS moving on a geodesic path (call him Bob) is defining his local inertial frame (Bob's geodesic path can either by a free-fall path through curved spacetime, or inertial motion in flat spacetime, since both qualify as geodesics in their respective spacetimes). As Alice passes through this region, she performs some experiment and notes the physical result. Whatever physical elements are involved in this experiment, Bob can analyze them too, and he should predict the SAME result even if his analysis is a bit different--for example, if Alice is standing on a platform and lets go of a ball, the ball will hit the platform, from Alice's point of view this is due to a gravitational force and from Bob's point of view this is due to the platform accelerating up towards the ball, but either way the actual prediction is the same. So, to say that Bob should observe the same results of any local experiment (provided he is approximating everything to first order) regardless of whether he's moving inertially in flat spacetime or free-falling in gravity is physically equivalent to saying Alice should observe the same results of any local experiment (again ignoring second-order and higher effects) regardless of whether she's accelerating through Bob's region in flat spacetime, or passing through his region because he's in free-fall while she is not (say, she's standing on a platform resting on a pole embedded in the Earth below, while Bob falls past her). Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 14 February 2014 07:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 1:04 AM, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. This sounds like my sort of science! One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small... It's unfortunate that the white rabbit with the frock coat and pocket watch from Alice in Wonderland became shorthand for 'unreal things', and then was further shortened to just white rabbit since, in fact, white rabbits are quite common and kept as pets. Well as you can tell from my quote I, at least, was assuming the Alice one! I think white rabbit in this sort of discussion is shorthand for a white rabbit with a pocket watch appearing spontaneously from nowhere, muttering about how late he is or words to that effect. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nagel on Explanation
On 14 February 2014 00:07, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I'm saying that the process can also stop by the inquisitor and the answerer both realizing that meaning, life, and aesthetic qualities might be unexplainable because they are all different frequencies (literally, btw) of the same Absolute thing - which is what I call sense (aka primordial identity pansensitivity). Not just an open ended magical Nameless possibility or Vacuum Flux, Energy, God, Unity, Laws of Physics or Love, but a scientifically accessible meta-property with specific capacities and limitations. Or maybe they're the outcome of a universal network of primitive computers synchronised in p-time. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like I've explained to you with nearly a dozen examples. That doesn't work, I'm afraid, which is why we both asked the question. Originally you said you can stop the experiment at any point... (and check the clocks of the observers). That implies you mean a *point in time* - and a point in time which will be simultaneous for all observers. Hence if you are working within relativity theory you must be referring to a hyperplane of simultaneity. So our question remains unanswered. Edgar has also said that if some observers start out with clocks synchronized at a single point in space and time and then move inertially away from one another, he thinks their clocks remain synchronized in p-time. He may not have thought about it in these terms, but this would actually imply a hypersurface of simultaneity shaped like a hyperbola, not like a flat hyperplane, as illustrated in this spacetime diagram showing the surface where different worldlines emanating from a common origin have each aged by 1 unit of elapsed proper time since departing from one another: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/spacetime_Minkowski_detail.png The diagram is from the very bottom of the page at http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/ which is a good discussion of spacetime geometry overall. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My question was what is the unique consistent definition of the 1p after the duplication has been performed?. In the 3-1 view, that does not exist, Then the 1p is of no use to anyone Why? Because according to you it does not exist. and neither is the 3-1 view whatever the hell that is supposed to be. So you declare something is not useful, before grasping what we talk about? Yes. Regardless of what X means if X does not exist then X is of somewhat limited value. 1p = the content of a personal diary I see, so squiggles on flat sheets of processed wood pulp bound together into a book is the answer to my question, it is the unique consistent definition of the 1p after the duplication has been performed. No I take that back, I don't see. If it changes objective external behavior then the Turing Test can see it see it in some sense, but this does not necessarily make it recognizable as such. I don't have a clue what that means. Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't understand one step backward 2 steps forward; if a change doesn't provide an immediate advantage to an animal right NOW it will not be selected for regardless of how advantageous that attribute may turn out to be sometime down the road. This is one of the great weaknesses of Evolution and is why designers do a much better job; Which helps us, Yes. but designers are also a product of evolution, Yes they were made by evolution but they operate by very different principles. and this contradict your point. BULLSHIT! Designers' consciousness has a role. Designers intelligence has THE role. If not, you would not say that designers are better than evolution. Yes I would. Rational designs are, well, rational, but evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees! Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The only advantage Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it was the only way complex objects could get built. I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design, the last one is the most important: 1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that may no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so, evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles. 2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must pass through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt this degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was reversed as it is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable. Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows. Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also why humans have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as new ones. 3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get the mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight than the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations for feathers and skin flaps are good enough. 4) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can give you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you sickle cell anemia. 5) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet. If the tire on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
Liz: the white rabbit was an esteemed member of the Everything List in it's 1st decade. - John On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 February 2014 07:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 1:04 AM, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. This sounds like my sort of science! One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small... It's unfortunate that the white rabbit with the frock coat and pocket watch from Alice in Wonderland became shorthand for 'unreal things', and then was further shortened to just white rabbit since, in fact, white rabbits are quite common and kept as pets. Well as you can tell from my quote I, at least, was assuming the Alice one! I think white rabbit in this sort of discussion is shorthand for a white rabbit with a pocket watch appearing spontaneously from nowhere, muttering about how late he is or words to that effect. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
PS! I hate grammatical undecisivenesses like what I committed in the previous post to you. I did not mean the 1st decade of the white rabbit, I meant it of the list. (Habituel newscast English!). JM On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: the white rabbit was an esteemed member of the Everything List in it's 1st decade. - John On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 February 2014 07:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 1:04 AM, LizR wrote: On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.? Why? No. Not at all. You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside, and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic), you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature. This sounds like my sort of science! One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small... It's unfortunate that the white rabbit with the frock coat and pocket watch from Alice in Wonderland became shorthand for 'unreal things', and then was further shortened to just white rabbit since, in fact, white rabbits are quite common and kept as pets. Well as you can tell from my quote I, at least, was assuming the Alice one! I think white rabbit in this sort of discussion is shorthand for a white rabbit with a pocket watch appearing spontaneously from nowhere, muttering about how late he is or words to that effect. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Congrats! Illustrates how 3-4 wrongs (unknowns?) make a right.(explained). Event horizon - nice. Even if you couple it. Gravity: a toughy one. I have an explanation so good that nobody repeats it. An 'unexpected way' is unexpected. JM On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). On 14 February 2014 09:33, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in free fall in a gravitational field that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is equivalent to acceleration. Suppose the observer who's not moving on a geodesic path (call her Alice) passes through the small spacetime neighborhood where the observer who IS moving on a geodesic path (call him Bob) is defining his local inertial frame (Bob's geodesic path can either by a free-fall path through curved spacetime, or inertial motion in flat spacetime, since both qualify as geodesics in their respective spacetimes). As Alice passes through this region, she performs some experiment and notes the physical result. Whatever physical elements are involved in this experiment, Bob can analyze them too, and he should predict the SAME result even if his analysis is a bit different--for example, if Alice is standing on a platform and lets go of a ball, the ball will hit the platform, from Alice's point of view this is due to a gravitational force and from Bob's point of view this is due to the platform accelerating up towards the ball, but either way the actual prediction is the same. So, to say that Bob should observe the same results of any local experiment (provided he is approximating everything to first order) regardless of whether he's moving inertially in flat spacetime or free-falling in gravity is physically equivalent to saying Alice should observe the same results of any local experiment (again ignoring second-order and higher effects) regardless of whether she's accelerating through Bob's region in flat spacetime, or passing through his region because he's in free-fall while she is not (say, she's standing on a platform resting on a pole embedded in the Earth below, while Bob falls past her). Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: MODAL 5 (was Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 14 February 2014 07:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, and others,
On 13 Feb 2014, at 10:04, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain,
That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside,
and if you find the flying pig, then yes, you can say that comp explains
the flying pig, but if you see a white rabbit instead (in the arithmetic),
you can say that comp does not explain the flying pig, and might be false
in case you don't find the white rabbit in nature.
This sounds like my sort of science!
It is the scientist sort of science, yes.
One pill makes you larger... And one pill makes you small...
Unfortunately, in the *realist* fairy tales, sometimes you don't have the
magic wand, nor magic pills, and you have to empty an ocean with a tea
spoon, if not a sieve, and be confronted with ten thousand Monsters if not
grin without cat!
We say that reality kick back, and it it is an euphemism. And that
explains probably why science asks for some amount of works. Even tedious
one!
Well, just to prepare you for 8, well, no, 7 exercises.
And more official definitions.
Definition: A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is a non empty set W, with a binary
relation R.
That's all you need to know, about a Kripke multiverse.
Conventionally we use the greek letter for its element, alpha, beta, ...
and we call them world.
OK?
Exercise: give examples of the simplest Kripke multiverses possible.
W = { alpha } R = alphaRalpha (R is true or false for accessibility of
alpha from itself - although I'm not sure how a universe can't be
accessible from itself, to be honest).
Solution:
W cannot be empty (by the definition above), so the simplest one is
probably the singleton {alpha}, with the empty binary relation---alpha does
not access to any world, not even itself.
Perhaps the next simplest one is {alpha}, with alpha R alpha. Alpha access
to itself.
OK?
Oh, OK, I assumed alpa R alpha was equivalently simple whether R was true
of false. (Why is inaccessible considered simpler? In a way I'd consider
self-accessible simpler!)
But Kripke multiverse can be illuminated. By this I mean that we can
associate a truth value (t, f, or 1, 0 ...) to all propositional letters,
and this for each world. In english: we just illuminate the multiverse by
telling the truth value of the atomic propositions (p, q, r, ...) in each
world. (keep in mind that the goal is to find counterexample in modal
reasoning).
OK
We stipulate also that all worlds obeys classical propositional logic
(CPL).
In particular, if A is true at alpha, and if B is true at alpha, then (A
B) is true at alpha. For example. You cannot have a world with A false, but
(A B) true. Etc. OK?
OK
Let us consider only one propositional letters. As a matter of fact,
although the possible truth value of []p does not depend on p, it is
independent of the value of q, so, to start, we can play with only one
propositional letter, as most formula have only one propositional letters
occurring in them.
But how to decide the truth of a modal formula, with occurrence of []p and
p?
All you have to keep in mind is that (Kripke semantics):
[]p is true in alpha = p is true in all the worlds accessible from alpha
(dually, you have already seen this)
p is true in alpha == there is at least one world accessible from
alpha where p is true.
So is []p true in the simplest multiverse with nowhere accessible? (It
looks like both []p and ~[]p are true!) p is false because there isn't an
accessible world.
OK?
It is really the same semantics as Leibniz, but relativized on each
relatively accessible worlds.
This determines the truth value of []p and p in the illuminated
multiverse. To see if []p is true in a world, just look at those world
accessed by alpha, and see if p is true at them. If alpha access ten
worlds, you have to look at those ten worlds. If alpha access 0 worlds, you
have zero verification to do, making the truth of []p vacuously true (or
use []p = ~~p).
OK that answers the question. Of course []p = ~~p so ~p says there is
a world accessible from alpha where p is false. With no worlds accessible
that is false, so ~~p is true.
OK?
OK
Now, ask any question if anything remains unclear up to here, before
trying the 7) exercises.
But here is the exercise (we work with only one propositional letter)
First illuminate the two simplest multiverses above, that is {alpha} with
no accessibility relation, and {alpha} with alpha R alpha. That should not
be long, given that we restrict ourself to only one propositional variable
p, and have only one world.
Well, we get { p=t } and { p=f } regardless of the accessibility relations.
(If that's how you write it)
Which of those
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 14 February 2014 10:11, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: the white rabbit was an esteemed member of the Everything List in it's 1st decade. - John I believe it has been immortalised in Russell's book, too. (As well as Lewis Carroll's, obviously :) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/13/2014 11:02 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. As an example SR is used to calculate the size of proton bunches in the LHC even though they are at % of the speed of light and subject to enormous acceleration at the turning magnets. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, 4 questions: 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2 relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock? That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relativity theory? Yes or no? 2. Do you agree that A can always know what B's view of him is, and that B can always know what A's view of him is? Both A and B understand relativity theory so they can, right? Yes or no? 3: Do you agree that this means that the two views taken together are something both A and B agree on? That both A and B always have an agreed on frame independent OVERview of their whole relativistic relationship that consists of knowledge of both frames? Yes or no? 4. Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was reading when B's clock time was reading t'? Yes or no? Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:24:02 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my friend, is frame independence Sure, it gives equations for both frames, but you haven't given any sort of mathematical derivation to show how this leads to the conclusion that there must be a unique true definition of simultaneity, or what that definition would be. In Cartesian geometry we can have different coordinate systems which have different equations for which markings on different measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate, but you DON'T conclude that this implies there must be a unique true way of defining something like y-equality. Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by instantaneous acceleration. There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual physical effect. See my other recent post where I explained that instantaneous acceleration can be understood either in terms of the limit as a finite acceleration period gets briefer and briefer, or just an approximation for an acceleration that's very brief compared to the timescales that we are considering in the problem. Jesse On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that no relativity textbook will discuss any frame independent method to determine simultaneity? Also, do you agree that your statement when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read the same as each other's would NOT be true if we were comparing readings in their common rest frame after one observer magically undergoes an instantaneous acceleration to come to rest relative to the other? If you disagree, please tell me if you disagree with the specific numbers I gave (for example, if Bob instantaneously accelerates at age 20 to come to rest relative to Alice, then in their mutual rest frame immediately after the acceleration, Alice's clock reads 25 simultaneously with Bob's reading 20). And if you agree with that, does this mean that the answer for frame-independent simultaneity that is given by relativity theory according to you is actually DIFFERENT than the answer given by p-time simultaneity, since you said before that for two clocks at rest relative to each other, readings which are simultaneous in their common rest frame should be simultaneous in p-time? Jesse -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 14 February 2014 10:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 11:02 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. As an example SR is used to calculate the size of proton bunches in the LHC even though they are at % of the speed of light and subject to enormous acceleration at the turning magnets. Wow, and there I was thinking we'd never achieve FTL travel! :-) (Sorry) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, 4 questions: 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2 relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock? That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relativity theory? Yes or no? Yes. 2. Do you agree that A can always know what B's view of him is, and that B can always know what A's view of him is? Both A and B understand relativity theory so they can, right? Yes or no? Yes. 3: Do you agree that this means that the two views taken together are something both A and B agree on? That both A and B always have an agreed on frame independent OVERview of their whole relativistic relationship that consists of knowledge of both frames? Yes or no? No, although this is just a matter of terminology--that's not what physicists mean by frame independent, they mean a particular physical variable whose value is the same regardless of what frame you use to calculate it, like the proper time between two events on a specific worldline. It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things along the lines of In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true. 4. Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was reading when B's clock time was reading t'? Yes or no? No. Nowhere have you provided a mathematical explanation or even a numerical example where you show how the fact that they agree on each frame's description allows them to derive a unique truth about simultaneity. Moreover, there is a spatial analogy to each of the statements 1-3 involving a pair of different Cartesian coordinate systems and how they each say different things about which markings on two measuring tapes are at the same y, yet you would NOT similarly conclude there must be some coordinate-independent truth about which markings are at the same y (and before you object that spatial examples are irrelevant, please respond to my questions in the post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/xtjSyxxi4awJ , specifically the one that asks which of two statements A or B better matches your view about the logic behind your conclusion of absolute simultaneity). Jesse Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:24:02 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my friend, is frame independence Sure, it gives equations for both frames, but you haven't given any sort of mathematical derivation to show how this leads to the conclusion that there must be a unique true definition of simultaneity, or what that definition would be. In Cartesian geometry we can have different coordinate systems which have different equations for which markings on different measuring tapes have the same y-coordinate, but you DON'T conclude that this implies there must be a unique true way of defining something like y-equality. Answer to second paragraph. Depends on what you mean by instantaneous acceleration. There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual physical effect. See my other recent post where I explained that instantaneous acceleration can be understood either in terms of the limit as a finite acceleration period gets briefer and briefer, or just an approximation for an acceleration that's very brief compared to the timescales that we are considering in the problem. Jesse On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames for any 1 relativistic scenario. That gives us the frame independent method to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time theory. But do you agree that this is your own original conclusion about the implications of SR that somehow all mainstream physicists have missed, that no relativity textbook will discuss any frame independent method to determine simultaneity? Also, do you agree that your statement when the relative motion magically stops, their clocks will still read
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Brent On 2/13/2014 12:41 PM, LizR wrote: Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:56 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer? The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Then, would it be fair to say that the only thing special about the event horizon is this Hotel California effect? Last thing I remember, I was Running for the door I had to find the passage back To the place I was before Relax, said the night man, We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave! (Eagles) Cheers, Chris Brent On 2/13/2014 12:41 PM, LizR wrote: Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Hi Quentin I do not, valid critics are valid, By definition mate. but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil. This is what I mean by emotional arm waving. I can honestly think of things that are more evil and I suppose, from Clark's point of view, hes been pointing out the inconsistencies in Bruno's argument for two years too. Does that make Bruno evil??? In a later post you try to rebut Clark : In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they will never meet. That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruction of the W guy 200 years later than the M guy, they will never meet... But if you can send the W guy skipping through time, you can send the M guy skipping through time too. So they could potentially meet. In MWI 'copies' can not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly. In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics. all the best Chris. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level. If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory. Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of comp). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into this light cone (see the top diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the light cone, while the curve labeled x=0.2 would be the worldline of such an accelerating observer, similarly with x=0.4, x=0.6 etc.) Naturally any light cone behaves like an event horizon in the sense that once you cross into it, there's no way to ever get out of it without moving faster than light. But such a Rindler horizon is not considered a true event horizon, if I remember the terminology correctly--an event horizon is specifically defined as a boundary between points where all worldlines crossing through those points are guaranteed to hit a singularity, and points where some worldlines can avoid doing so forever. Jesse On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Brent On 2/13/2014 12:41 PM, LizR wrote: Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Hi Bruno Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you who has failed to convince him. All the best Chris From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 + Hi Quentin I do not, valid critics are valid, By definition mate. but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil. This is what I mean by emotional arm waving. I can honestly think of things that are more evil and I suppose, from Clark's point of view, hes been pointing out the inconsistencies in Bruno's argument for two years too. Does that make Bruno evil??? In a later post you try to rebut Clark : In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they will never meet. That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruction of the W guy 200 years later than the M guy, they will never meet... But if you can send the W guy skipping through time, you can send the M guy skipping through time too. So they could potentially meet. In MWI 'copies' can not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly. In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics. all the best Chris. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level. If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory. Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of comp). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Nagel on Explanation
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:45:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 14 February 2014 00:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I'm saying that the process can also stop by the inquisitor and the answerer both realizing that meaning, life, and aesthetic qualities might be unexplainable because they are all different frequencies (literally, btw) of the same Absolute thing - which is what I call sense (aka primordial identity pansensitivity). Not just an open ended magical Nameless possibility or Vacuum Flux, Energy, God, Unity, Laws of Physics or Love, but a scientifically accessible meta-property with specific capacities and limitations. Or maybe they're the outcome of a universal network of primitive computers synchronised in p-time. Then you need to explain where the network of primitive computers came from and why they are accidentally pretending to be the universe. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps space (particularly since it will, I think, generally be a long way from the accelerating observer?) I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? But I *do *seem to recall that the accel-caused EH emits Hawking radiation, which is ... interesting, at least. On 14 February 2014 11:31, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into this light cone (see the top diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the light cone, while the curve labeled x=0.2 would be the worldline of such an accelerating observer, similarly with x=0.4, x=0.6 etc.) Naturally any light cone behaves like an event horizon in the sense that once you cross into it, there's no way to ever get out of it without moving faster than light. But such a Rindler horizon is not considered a true event horizon, if I remember the terminology correctly--an event horizon is specifically defined as a boundary between points where all worldlines crossing through those points are guaranteed to hit a singularity, and points where some worldlines can avoid doing so forever. Jesse On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Brent On 2/13/2014 12:41 PM, LizR wrote: Acceleration does cause the formation of an event horizon, I believe, which might be considered to couple it with gravity (in an unexpected way). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Can the MWI copies ever communicate, e.g. via quantum interference? On 14 February 2014 11:38, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Bruno Come on, the poor guy tried hard since two years, and has convinced only him That's a good way of spinning the fact that for two years it is in reality you who has failed to convince him. All the best Chris -- From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:08 + Hi Quentin I do not, valid critics are valid, By definition mate. but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil. This is what I mean by emotional arm waving. I can honestly think of things that are more evil and I suppose, from Clark's point of view, hes been pointing out the inconsistencies in Bruno's argument for two years too. Does that make Bruno evil??? In a later post you try to rebut Clark : In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they will never meet. That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruction of the W guy 200 years later than the M guy, they will never meet... But if you can send the W guy skipping through time, you can send the M guy skipping through time too. So they could potentially meet. In MWI 'copies' can not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly. In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics. all the best Chris. -- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level. If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory. Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of comp). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I reserve my judgement on this... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
I mostly agree Edgar. I would split hairs with you about using the word 'relationships' as a noun for the fundamentals. I see relating as an aspect of sense and sense-making, so that it places the capacity to relate (pansensitivity) as the fundamental. I think you are right about R-bits being identical, however I would not say that they exist in an absolute sense, but are rather the most restricted type of sensory relationship that we can detect. In this way, R-bits are not actually what make up macroscopic experience in an absolute sense, because our native macroscopic perspectives have their own primitive thresholds of sensitivity. The universe senses and makes sense on every level, so that humans can live without knowledge of atoms or R-bits and have a relatively complete understanding of their world, just as microphenomenal experiences are relatively complete without having any hint of human existence. Craig On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:23:14 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. Your abacus example is A Propos to the points in my post. The important insight in my post is that all R-bits, that make up all the information that constitutes the current state of the universe, are identical. It is the RELATIONSHIPS of these R-bits, not the R-bits themselves that give us the H-numbers used in H-math. This is obvious from a proper understanding of binary numbers in particular, in which it is the bits that are clearly elemental, and all numbers are relationships of a single type of bit, rather than being elemental in themselves. H-math (and Bruno) assumes that these individual numbers are what is elemental and actually real and extant in reality. That there is some elemental thing called prime number 17 that is an actual fixed unalterable component of fundamental reality. I don't see anyway that makes sense, or is necessary. it confuses understanding of actual reality... What actually exists fundamentally, it seems to me, is a finite number of identical R-bits, rather than H-math numbers. It is unclear to what extent the R-math that actually computes reality in terms of these R-bits, needs any concepts like H-numbers, but to the extent it does, these are relationships, part of R-math, rather than elemental R-numbers themselves. R-numbers are just the set of all identical R-bits among which R-math can define the (small?) set of relationships it needs to compute actual reality. It is in this sense that I stated that all actual R-numbers are all just the identical R-bits which are just related and computed into all the information that constitutes the universe. in this sense then everything can be said to be composed of numbers=bits, and only of numbers=bits. Or more properly of numbers=bits and their relationships. Edgar On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, and Craig, Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime. In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as 17 are not necessary for reality to compute the universe. I suspect what reality does is more 1:1 comparisons. E.g. when reality makes a computation to conserve and redistribute particle properties among the outgoing particles of a particle interaction, it doesn't need to count up 17 of anything, it just has to know they are all distributed which it can do with simple 1;1 comparisons. It can do that by 1:1 comparisons, not by any notion of numbers such as 1, 2, or 17 much less any notion of primes. I suspect that in this regard Bruno may have more insight, but superficially I agree with you. Just as an abacus can be used to perform H-Math functions, on a physical level, all that is happening is that beads are sliding to one side or another (R-Math?). I consider H-Math not to be limited to humans, but more along the
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both accelerating under their mutual gravity) *do* warp space, presumably due to their motion. (...I think!) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. I understand that, but my argument has never been with Bruno's approach to Comp, it is with the assumption of Comp itself. I have a different understanding of the relation between information and consciousness which makes more sense, and it explains why Comp is false, and why it cannot be proved false logically. Craig -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
MSR Schema Diagram
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/octal3.jpg -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 07:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. What you have to do is show that either his assumptions are wrong, or that he has made a mistake in the logical inferences he draws from them. The correspondence with reality comes down to whether the original assumptions are realistic (i.e. accord with reality) or not. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 13 February 2014 08:45, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the concept of prime numbers that is political, its the assumption that we must agree that they are important to understanding consciousness. usually scientists agree with is political. I would be more sympathetic with in spite of what scientists/authorities agree with. If you agree with the axioms of comp, you have agreed that numbers are important to understanding consciousness. In particular, Yes Doctor doesn't work unless consciousness is digital. Of course you may disagree with Yes Doctor - I'm not sure that I would agree, given the choice! -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/13/2014 2:55 PM, LizR wrote: I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps space (particularly since it will, I think, generally be a long way from the accelerating observer?) I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? But I /do /seem to recall that the accel-caused EH emits Hawking radiation, which is ... interesting, at least. Sort of. It's called Uruh radiation. It's frame dependent in that the guy accelerating sees the vacuum as a thermal bath and can detect it, but to the guy not accelerating it appears that the detector is emitting the radiation it registers. Robert Wald has a thorough discussion of the phenomena. Its somewhat controversial and there have been proposals to detect its effect on highly accelerated particles in cyclotrons. Brent On 14 February 2014 11:31, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com mailto:laserma...@gmail.com wrote: In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into this light cone (see the top diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the light cone, while the curve labeled x=0.2 would be the worldline of such an accelerating observer, similarly with x=0.4, x=0.6 etc.) Naturally any light cone behaves like an event horizon in the sense that once you cross into it, there's no way to ever get out of it without moving faster than light. But such a Rindler horizon is not considered a true event horizon, if I remember the terminology correctly--an event horizon is specifically defined as a boundary between points where all worldlines crossing through those points are guaranteed to hit a singularity, and points where some worldlines can avoid doing so forever. Jesse On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both accelerating under their mutual gravity) /do/ warp space, presumably due to their motion. (...I think!) The stress energy warps space and its value is greater due to their orbital motion compared to them being stationary. But I don't think their acceleration per se contributes. In fact due to their orbital motion they will radiate away energy as gravity waves. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
2014-02-13 23:23 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Quentin I do not, valid critics are valid, By definition mate. but when you point to someone the inconsistency in his argument and that he maintains for years the same invalid argument that means that person does not want to argue, he wants to defend a position at all costs, that's evil. This is what I mean by emotional arm waving. I can honestly think of things that are more evil and I suppose, from Clark's point of view, hes been pointing out the inconsistencies in Bruno's argument for two years too. Does that make Bruno evil??? In a later post you try to rebut Clark : In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about who I or you is because however many copies of I or you there may or may not be they will never meet. That changes absolutely nothing... just put the reconstruction of the W guy 200 years later than the M guy, they will never meet... But if you can send the W guy skipping through time, you can send the M guy skipping through time too. Not if you follow the protocol, if you reconstruct the W guy 200 years later and the protocol is strictly followed, they'll never meet and that's all what's needed to proceed to this objection... that's all, and the fact that they could meet or not change absolutely nothing. So they could potentially meet. The potential meeting changes nothing... the feeling to be yourself does not depend on the possibility to meet a doppelganger... it's utterly absurd to claim otherwise. Quentin In MWI 'copies' can not potentially meet. If this is your attempt to point out an inconsistency its dismissively lazy and fails triumphantly. In my opinion your beef is impotent anyhow. The most you'd ever show was that Clark applied his argument inconsistently, you certainly wouldn't show that he was wrong about Bruno's metaphysics. all the best Chris. -- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 14 February 2014 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So no matter what is refuted we can save comp by saying that it is true but at a lower level and what we have observed that appears to refute comp is a dream or simulation at a higher level. If this is true, comp isn't a scientific theory. Of course the converse of this is that no matter what we observe then it cannot confirm comp. This is true of any scientific theory (if comp is one, therefore, also true of comp). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 14 February 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both accelerating under their mutual gravity) *do* warp space, presumably due to their motion. (...I think!) The stress energy warps space and its value is greater due to their orbital motion compared to them being stationary. But I don't think their acceleration per se contributes. In fact due to their orbital motion they will radiate away energy as gravity waves. It was the gravity waves I was thinking of. That is to say, I believe very large masses orbitting each other radiate gravity waves because of their orbital motion, hence hence gravity waves are, or at least can be in this situation, an acceleration-caused warping of space ... as per the original question. Or have I got that wrong? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. (And anyone who thinks consciousness is digital above the quantum level has accepted Yes Doctor.) If there's a valid objection, I think it should be a bit more robust than oh but we can't do that (yet) ! -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/13/2014 3:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 February 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/13/2014 3:01 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 February 2014 11:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? Actually I take that back. A pair of neutron stars in close orbit (both accelerating under their mutual gravity) /do/ warp space, presumably due to their motion. (...I think!) The stress energy warps space and its value is greater due to their orbital motion compared to them being stationary. But I don't think their acceleration per se contributes. In fact due to their orbital motion they will radiate away energy as gravity waves. It was the gravity waves I was thinking of. That is to say, I believe very large masses orbitting each other radiate gravity waves because of their orbital motion, hence hence gravity waves are, or at least can be in this situation, an acceleration-caused warping of space ... as per the original question. Or have I got that wrong? No, I think that's right. It's like EM: A charged particle causes a field. An acceleration causes a wave in the field caused by the particle. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas
Hi Liz Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. my objections were to do with the correct way to predict expectancy in a universe in which every possible outcome occurs. They didn't concern technological limitations. I don't think anyone has objected on that score have they? All the best Chris. Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. (And anyone who thinks consciousness is digital above the quantum level has accepted Yes Doctor.) If there's a valid objection, I think it should be a bit more robust than oh but we can't do that (yet) ! -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 14 February 2014 12:46, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. my objections were to do with the correct way to predict expectancy in a universe in which every possible outcome occurs. They didn't concern technological limitations. I don't think anyone has objected on that score have they? Some people have objected on the basis that we can't duplicate people, for example. I think the expectation value objection is a valid one (and Bruno agrees that it is an open problem in comp) - we have no way to work out what we should expect to see on the basis of an infinite number of computations (I think the MWI has a similar problem?) All the best Chris. -- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:31:28 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Personally, I feel that objections to comp on the basis of what we can and can't do with our present technology are a bit hair splitting, or perhaps simply evading the issue. Anyone who has accepted the MWI has accepted that duplication is possible. (And anyone who thinks consciousness is digital above the quantum level has accepted Yes Doctor.) If there's a valid objection, I think it should be a bit more robust than oh but we can't do that (yet) ! -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Brent, Correction. That should be Unruh radiation or the Unruh effect, not Uruh. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:18:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/13/2014 2:55 PM, LizR wrote: I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps space (particularly since it will, I think, generally be a long way from the accelerating observer?) I wouldn't imagine that acceleration in itself warps space...? But I *do *seem to recall that the accel-caused EH emits Hawking radiation, which is ... interesting, at least. Sort of. It's called Uruh radiation. It's frame dependent in that the guy accelerating sees the vacuum as a thermal bath and can detect it, but to the guy not accelerating it appears that the detector is emitting the radiation it registers. Robert Wald has a thorough discussion of the phenomena. Its somewhat controversial and there have been proposals to detect its effect on highly accelerated particles in cyclotrons. Brent On 14 February 2014 11:31, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into this light cone (see the top diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the light cone, while the curve labeled x=0.2 would be the worldline of such an accelerating observer, similarly with x=0.4, x=0.6 etc.) Naturally any light cone behaves like an event horizon in the sense that once you cross into it, there's no way to ever get out of it without moving faster than light. But such a Rindler horizon is not considered a true event horizon, if I remember the terminology correctly--an event horizon is specifically defined as a boundary between points where all worldlines crossing through those points are guaranteed to hit a singularity, and points where some worldlines can avoid doing so forever. Jesse On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: The event horizon due to acceleration is just relative to the one accelerated. I doesn't warp space, so there's no reason it should interact with anything. Brent -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:14:18PM +1300, LizR wrote: It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... I don't see why - with the Church thesis, Peano arithmetic is just as good as any other system capable of universal computation. Bruno takes Arithmetical Realism precisely because it is so uncontroversial. One could equally assert the reality of any system capable of universal computation. When it comes to step 8, of addressing the non-robust universe move, ISTM that this move is actually one of denying arithmetical reality, of denying the real existence of a universal computer in fact. But I think that would do violence to the Church thesis also. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Gravitation curves space. No - curved space generates the phenomena of gravitation. It is sometimes said that matter curves space. So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why not? Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat tangent space. If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle? No. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On 14 February 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:14:18PM +1300, LizR wrote: It seems to me that the situation summarises as follows. Craig disagrees with the axioms of comp, in particular with Yes Doctor and hence parts company with Bruno at step 0. Edgar agrees with Yes Doctor (because in his view consciousness is the product of a computation) and hence, if he is going to disagree with comp, needs to find a flaw in Bruno's other axioms or his logical chain of inferences. I suspect the weak link to attack here *might* be Peano arithmetic... I don't see why - with the Church thesis, Peano arithmetic is just as good as any other system capable of universal computation. That comment isn't my opinion, it was intended for Edgar. Since he thinks human maths is different to reality maths, it seems like the obvious starting point (for him) if he's going to disagree with comp. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al, Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration of gravity felt as such. Given that, let me clarify my example: Observer A is standing on the surface of earth. He experiences a continual 1g acceleration BECAUSE earth's gravitation warps space around the earth. Observer B is standing in an accelerating elevator out in gravity free space. He also experiences the same 1g acceleration. Now imagine that elevator is enormous, the size of a planet (but assume also in this thought experiment that it has no mass and thus has no gravitational effect). OK, the whole planet sized massless elevator is continually accelerating so that observer B feels a 1g acceleration. Now is the acceleration felt by observer B because the acceleration of the planet sized elevator warps space? Note the same 1 g acceleration would be felt everywhere on that planet sized surface. If so, what is the shape of that space curvature/warp? Does it extend across the entire planet sized elevator surface? If not doesn't that violate the Principle of Equivalence? And mean acceleration is not really equivalent to gravitation? Can anyone explain? Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an infinitesimally small neighborhood of spacetime around them, and that if the laws of physics are expressed in the coordinates of this frame, they will look just like the corresponding equations in flat SR spacetime, though only in the first-order approximation to the equations (i.e. eliminating all derivatives beyond the first derivatives). See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfMWbQB2dLIClpg=PP1pg=PA52 and http://books.google.com/books?id=95Frgz-grhgClpg=PP1pg=PA481 and http://books.google.com/books?id=jjBMw0KFtZgClpg=PP1pg=PA5 Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al, Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration of gravity felt as such. Yes, that's why I equated inertial motion in flat spacetime with freefall in a gravitational field--Bob could be either one in my example. I also equated accelerated motion in flat spacetime with non-freefall in a gravitational field--Alice could be either one in my example, note where I said she'd observe the same thing regardless of whether she's accelerating through Bob's region in flat spacetime, or passing through his region because he's in free-fall while she is not (say, she's standing on a platform resting on a pole embedded in the Earth below, while Bob falls past her). Now imagine that elevator is enormous, the size of a planet (but assume also in this thought experiment that it has no mass and thus has no gravitational effect). The equivalence principle simply doesn't apply to large regions of space where tidal forces can be observed, mathematically it only applies in the infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime, though in practice if your measuring instruments aren't too precise a reasonably small space like an elevator should be OK (at least in the Earth's gravitational field--in the gravitational field of a black hole even an elevator would be too large because there'd be a significant tidal force between the top and bottom). See the discussion about how tidal forces spoil any attempt to make the equivalence principle work in a non-infinitesimal region at http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle Jesse On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an infinitesimally small neighborhood of spacetime around them, and that if the laws of physics are expressed in the coordinates of this frame, they will look just like the corresponding equations in flat SR spacetime, though only in the first-order approximation to the equations (i.e. eliminating all derivatives beyond the first derivatives). See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfMWbQB2dLIClpg=PP1pg=PA52 and http://books.google.com/books?id=95Frgz-grhgClpg=PP1pg=PA481 and http://books.google.com/books?id=jjBMw0KFtZgClpg=PP1pg=PA5 Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. Jesse -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Yeah, tidal forces make a measurable difference between the guy on a planet and the accelerating elevator guy. Basically a planet is (more or less) spherical, so the gravity field isn't uniform over the flat floor of hte elevator, but pulls slightly towards the centre of the sphere. With sensitive enough instruments you could tell that two objects falling on either side of the elevator aren't moving along parallel courses, and hence tell the two cases apart. The equivalence principle also assumes that gravitational and inertial mass are the same, which (although accurate to a very high degree) may turn out to not be exactly identical. (See the works of E.E. Doc Smith for what that would mean!) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, You agree It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things along the lines of In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's calculation of B's t' in A's frame AND (2) B's calculation of A's t in B's frame. Is that correct? They both can know each other's relativistic calculations of their own clock times. Correct? Yes or no? Question 1: Do you agree those 2 frames are mathematically correlated? Yes, or no? 2. Do you agree that each frame contains the variable t (A's reading of his own clock) and t' (B's reading of his own clock), that each frame gives a relationship between those two variables? Yes or no? 3. Do you agree that A's frame gives a value of t' in terms of t? And B's frame gives a value for t in term's of t'? Yes or no? 4. Do you understand that if we have equations for t' in terms of t in A's frame, and t in terms of t' in B's frame, that we can always establish a 1: 1 correlation between t in A's frame and t' in B's frame? Yes or no? To your last question I provided nearly a DOZEN numerical examples, and procedures of how the above works in specific examples, apparently none of which seems to have registered with you. Lastly, once more, for the nth time, your spatial coordinates point is just equivalent to saying you can use an arbitrary clock time coordinate system which is trivially true. But the fact you can get arbitrarily different clock times or location on a measuring tape that way does NOT change the fact that we are talking about REAL actual, exact and fixed age differences. You seem obsessed with this tape analogy which has NOTHING to do with the discussion. You are continually harping on a point to which I agree (assuming you won't try switching the goal posts again). That it's possible in relativity to assign arbitrary coordinate systems for either space OR CLOCK TIME. However that has nothing to do with the fact of real age differences which is the only REAL clock here, the biological clocks. Doesn't matter in the least if you measure those age differences with clocks running at whatever speed or start time you like, the real age differences do NOT change. Doesn't matter where the origin of your tapes are or whether they are reading inches or meters. The actual location they measure does NOT change. So wind your tapes back into their housings for goodness sakes! Edgar but since those frames are mathematically related by the rules of relativity that always allows Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:55:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, 4 questions: 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2 relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own clock? That it provides 2 descriptions, both consistent with relativity theory? Yes or no? Yes. 2. Do you agree that A can always know what B's view of him is, and that B can always know what A's view of him is? Both A and B understand relativity theory so they can, right? Yes or no? Yes. 3: Do you agree that this means that the two views taken together are something both A and B agree on? That both A and B always have an agreed on frame independent OVERview of their whole relativistic relationship that consists of knowledge of both frames? Yes or no? No, although this is just a matter of terminology--that's not what physicists mean by frame independent, they mean a particular physical variable whose value is the same regardless of what frame you use to calculate it, like the proper time between two events on a specific worldline. It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things along the lines of In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true. 4. Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was reading when B's clock time was reading t'? Yes or no? No. Nowhere have you provided a mathematical explanation or even a numerical example where you show how the fact that they agree on each frame's description allows them to derive a unique truth about simultaneity. Moreover, there is a spatial analogy to each of the statements 1-3 involving a pair of different Cartesian coordinate systems and how they each say different things about which markings on two measuring tapes are at the same y, yet you would NOT similarly conclude there must be some coordinate-independent truth about which
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Russell, No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress). You say Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat tangent space. Are you saying then that acceleration from a rising elevator is motion through curved space? That was my original question but I don't know what your answer is from your post.. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:41:09 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Gravitation curves space. No - curved space generates the phenomena of gravitation. It is sometimes said that matter curves space. So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why not? Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat tangent space. If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle? No. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Jesse, The accelerating floor of an elevator the size of a planet is not an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime. So that comment of yours does not apply. And I don't see any tidal forces at play here since the entire floor of the elevator is accelerating 'upward' (just in the direction of the acceleration since there is no absolute up and down) at the same rate and there are NO gravitational fields in deep space where the elevator is. So I don't see your tidal force comment being relevant. So based on that understanding, is space warped by the acceleration of the planet sized sized elevator or not? And if so what is the form of that warpage? Is there a planet sized warping, or not? Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:51:00 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al, Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration of gravity felt as such. Yes, that's why I equated inertial motion in flat spacetime with freefall in a gravitational field--Bob could be either one in my example. I also equated accelerated motion in flat spacetime with non-freefall in a gravitational field--Alice could be either one in my example, note where I said she'd observe the same thing regardless of whether she's accelerating through Bob's region in flat spacetime, or passing through his region because he's in free-fall while she is not (say, she's standing on a platform resting on a pole embedded in the Earth below, while Bob falls past her). Now imagine that elevator is enormous, the size of a planet (but assume also in this thought experiment that it has no mass and thus has no gravitational effect). The equivalence principle simply doesn't apply to large regions of space where tidal forces can be observed, mathematically it only applies in the infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime, though in practice if your measuring instruments aren't too precise a reasonably small space like an elevator should be OK (at least in the Earth's gravitational field--in the gravitational field of a black hole even an elevator would be too large because there'd be a significant tidal force between the top and bottom). See the discussion about how tidal forces spoil any attempt to make the equivalence principle work in a non-infinitesimal region at http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle Jesse On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation. Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in a gravitational field can define a local inertial frame in an infinitesimally small neighborhood of spacetime around them, and that if the laws of physics are expressed in the coordinates of this frame, they will look just like the corresponding equations in flat SR spacetime, though only in the first-order approximation to the equations (i.e. eliminating all derivatives beyond the first derivatives). See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfMWbQB2dLIClpg=PP1pg=PA52 and http://books.google.com/books?id=95Frgz-grhgClpg=PP1pg=PA481 and http://books.google.com/books?id=jjBMw0KFtZgClpg=PP1pg=PA5 Even though the curvature disappears in the first order terms, it remains in the higher order terms, whereas curvature is really zero in all terms for an accelerating observer in flat spacetime. So, the answer to your question is that acceleration does not in itself cause spacetime curvature, SR can handle acceleration just fine as discussed at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html , but this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle since the mathematical formulation of the principle deals only with first-order terms. Jesse -- 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.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Liz, As usual, you are late to the party. The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces. The tidal forces of EARTH'S gravitation on the man standing on earth are negligible and can be ignored. They are just the difference in gravitational pull on his head and feet. Of course the tidal forces of the MOON on the man on earth are measurable but those are not part of my example. So tidal forces can be ignored. Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:07:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Yeah, tidal forces make a measurable difference between the guy on a planet and the accelerating elevator guy. Basically a planet is (more or less) spherical, so the gravity field isn't uniform over the flat floor of hte elevator, but pulls slightly towards the centre of the sphere. With sensitive enough instruments you could tell that two objects falling on either side of the elevator aren't moving along parallel courses, and hence tell the two cases apart. The equivalence principle also assumes that gravitational and inertial mass are the same, which (although accurate to a very high degree) may turn out to not be exactly identical. (See the works of E.E. Doc Smith for what that would mean!) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. And it implies there was no reality before humans. I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Edgar On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or perhaps just rigid. As I've pointed out his 8 steps may well be mathematically consistent but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the fundamental structure of reality at all. To meaningfully apply a purely mathematical or logical proof to reality, one must establish an actual correspondence of the variables in the proof to actual variables of reality. I don't see Bruno doing that at all. The strength of Bruno's approach is that that is implicit in the assumption of COMP. Once you assume that one's consciousness can be implemented by a computation, then necessarily ontological reality (whatever that is) can also be implemented by a computation. This is a simple consequence of the Church thesis. There is no way that anything happens in his static Platonia. And there is no method of selecting the structure of our actual universe from what is apparently his all possible universes. He told us his theory doesn't predict the fine tuning, as this type of theory must, because the fine tuning is not important in hi view. It is not important for the UDA. But it is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with the Anthropic Principle either. Bruno would say it is necessary for the manifestation of other conciousnesses to us. I reserve my judgement on this... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are numbers? What is math?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:51:18PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is 1p perspectives of conscious human observers. That is most certainly not the case with COMP, which posits an ontological reality that is computationally universal (in which case it may as well be Peano arithmetic). It might be levelled at my world view, described in Thoery of Nothingm although to be fair, I do not make any sort of ontological commitment, but just argue that ontological reality doesn't really have any empirical meaning. To me, that's just solipsism in new clothes. No - because in both COMP, and in my theory of nothing, the presence of other observers is a predicted consequence. Hardly solipsism. Perhaps you mean something else - idealism perhaps? And it implies there was no reality before humans. If by human you mean observers in general, then yes - it does imply that. There is no reality without observers. I think the correct view is that reality is independent of human perception, that it being functioning quite fine for 13.7 billion years before humans came along. But that humans each have their own internal VIEWS or SIMULATIONS of reality, which they mistake for actual human independent reality. What evidence do you offer for this assumption? Bruno, and a few others seem to MISTAKE those internal views of reality for human independent reality itself. It is intersubjective reality. But strictly speaking, not independent. That's a fundamental and deadly mistake in trying to make sense of reality... Actually, it has rather a lot of advantages for understanding as compared with the alternatives. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You agree It is true that they both agree on an overview which says things along the lines of In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's calculation of B's t' in A's frame AND (2) B's calculation of A's t in B's frame. Is that correct? They both can know each other's relativistic calculations of their own clock times. Correct? Yes or no? Yes. Question 1: Do you agree those 2 frames are mathematically correlated? Yes, or no? Yes. 2. Do you agree that each frame contains the variable t (A's reading of his own clock) and t' (B's reading of his own clock), that each frame gives a relationship between those two variables? Yes or no? Do t and t' refer to proper times for A and B (defined only along each one's worldline), or coordinate times in the rest frame of A and B (coordinate times have a well-defined value for arbitrary events, and will agree with the proper time for the observer that's at rest in whichever coordinate system we're talking about)? If proper time, I don't know what you mean by relationship between those variables, unless you're just talking about what pairs of readings are simultaneous in each frame. If coordinate time, then my answer is yes--the relationship between the coordinate time of an event in one system and the coordinate time of the same event in another system is just given by the Lorentz transformation equations for time: t' = gamma*(t - (vx/c^2)) t = gamma*(t' + (vx/c^2)) where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2), and v is the velocity of B's frame as measured in A's frame (with the assumption that we set up our coordinate axes so that B is moving along A's x-axis). 3. Do you agree that A's frame gives a value of t' in terms of t? And B's frame gives a value for t in term's of t'? Yes or no? If t and t' are proper time again I'm not sure what you mean, though if you're just asking if A's frame tells us what values are simultaneous in A's frame then yes. If coordinate times then yes, see the two equations above. 4. Do you understand that if we have equations for t' in terms of t in A's frame, and t in terms of t' in B's frame, that we can always establish a 1: 1 correlation between t in A's frame and t' in B's frame? Yes or no? If you are talking about proper times, no, each frame disagrees about what pairs of proper time readings are simultaneous so I see no way to use that to generate a single 1:1 relationship between proper times. If you're talking about coordinate times, then yes, but that 1:1 relationship only relates the coordinates each system assigns to a SINGLE event, for example if that single event is A's clock reading a proper time of 10, it would tell us that this event has coordinates t=10 in A's frame, and t'=gamma*10 in B's frame. It doesn't give us any sort of 1:1 relationship between DISTINCT events, like the event of A's clock reading a proper time of 10 and the event of B's clock reading some proper time. Do you agree? Yes or no? To your last question I provided nearly a DOZEN numerical examples, and procedures of how the above works in specific examples, apparently none of which seems to have registered with you. You provided some examples (using variables whose meaning wasn't always clear, rather than specific numbers) of how you think absolute simultaneity works in certain cases, but you simply ASSERT that it works this way, you never derive your conclusions from standard relativistic equations like the Lorentz transformation equations I mentioned above. That's why I said you never show how the fact that they agree on each frame's description allows them to derive a unique truth about simultaneity--the emphasis there is on the how. Lastly, once more, for the nth time, your spatial coordinates point is just equivalent to saying you can use an arbitrary clock time coordinate system which is trivially true. But the fact you can get arbitrarily different clock times or location on a measuring tape that way does NOT change the fact that we are talking about REAL actual, exact and fixed age differences. Yes, and the measuring tape example involves a REAL, actual, exact and fixed difference in path lengths along the tapes from the first crossing-point to the second, exactly analogous to the difference in proper time lengths along the worldlines of the twins from the first meeting-point to the second. Can you picture a spacetime diagram for the twins, and see how it looks like two different curves (or one curve and a straight line) between the same pair of points, exactly like a drawing of two measuring tapes which have different paths through space between two crossing-points? Do you understand that just as the number of markings on a measuring tape between the two crossing-points measures the ACTUAL PHYSICAL DISTANCE ALONG THE PATH between the
