Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 7:38:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/28/2020 5:59 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 6:47:39 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2020 6:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 6:39:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2020 3:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:46:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2020 9:24 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:48:45 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> How does QM tell us that conservation of energy can be violated 
>>> for brief durations? If you apply the time-energy form of the UP for 
>>> your 
>>> proof, please state the context of your proof, that is, exactly what do 
>>> E 
>>> and t stand for.*
>>
>>
>> The shorter the time (t) a system is under observation the larger the 
>> amount of energy (E) could pop into existence from nothing without 
>> direct 
>> detection, enough energy to create virtual particles. And you can 
>> calculate 
>> how large the indirect effects these virtual particles would have on the 
>> system.
>>
>
> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement about an ensemble 
> of observations, say for position and momentum of identical particles. It 
> says nothing about the result of events, say for the position and 
> momentum 
> of a single particle or event. Doing some arithmetic to get the 
> time-energy 
> form of the UP does not change this reality. As a result, your 
> description 
> of what happens to a single particle, virtual or not, is not 
> intelligible. 
> Please try again. AG 
>
>
> The UP doesn't apply to virtual particles because it refers to the 
> result of conjugate measurement (projection) operators.  You can't 
> measure 
> virtual particles.
>
> Brent
>

 In its usual form, does the UP allow us to measure position and 
 momentum *simultaneously*, or must we measure each variable 
 independently (for an ensemble of identical particles, of course)? What is 
 proper interpretation of the time/energy form of the principle in 
 statistical terms? TIA, AG 


 You can measure them simultaneously; but when you repeat the pair of 
 measurements on many identically prepared particles you find that there is 
 a scatter in the position  and a scatter in the momentum such that the HUP 
 is satisfied.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Can you give an example of the ensembles used in applying the 
>>> time-energy form of the UP? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0511245.pdf
>>>
>>
>> This article seems to establish a lower bound on time, but nothing 
>> related to ensembles. I have no idea about the meaning of the terms in the 
>> time-energy form of the UP. AG
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's also an interesting discussion of how to measure time in QM.  
>>> Since time is not an operator you have to construct a clock which defines 
>>> the physical meaning of time.  
>>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/clock_peres.pdf
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
> Since the "uncertainty" in the UP is a statistical entity with a 
> well-defined definition, aka "the standard deviation", how large must the 
> sample size be, to calculate it? TIA, AG 
>
>
> You mean to experimentally estimate it from the scatter of results?  That 
> depends on how accurately you want to estimate.  The error scales as 
> 1/sqrt(N).  In most experiments with photons or electrons, it's easy to 
> make N big.  But it's also hard to eliminate other sources of scatter that 
> have nothing to do with the UP.  So only experiments deliberately designed 
> for maximum precision are going to push the UP bounds for simultaneous 
> measurements. 
>
> Brent
>

If the experiment is designed for max precision, how large does N have to 
be to satisfy the UP? TIA, AG 

>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e37b187-cb85-48ab-843e-1e8939a3ec63%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 

Universe as a simulated strange loop

[Russell Standish]

Not sure if this paper has been mentioned here, but it seems quite apt
to our discussions. It appears concordant with my ideas in "Theory of
Nothing", also Bruno's AUDA and Brent's virtuous circles.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/2/247/htm

I haven't yet read the article in full - just the summary writeup here:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=6#rebelltitem6

Cheers

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20200503030239.GB29442%40zen.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 4:27:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:
>
>
> from 
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
> 1University of Cambridge
> 2Wolfram Research, Inc
>
>
> The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of 
> the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed 
> by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.
>
> The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for 
> causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal 
> correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a 
> discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous 
> Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).
>
> The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, 
> exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime 
> geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the 
> salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds 
> in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this 
> work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to 
> the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the 
> computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that 
> distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a 
> theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable 
> spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater 
> depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes 
> significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic 
> formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship 
> between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the 
> derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to 
> investigate several more of these questions in the course of future 
> publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram 
> Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and 
> gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will 
> entail.
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
Shall we call it Bruno 2.0? AG
 

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of 
>> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding 
>> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed 
>> with as a student.
>>
>> What else?
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>>
>>> What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
>>> Ronald
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:


 The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
 foundation" of physics has a name: 
 *The Wolfram Model.*



 *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
 *Model*
 Jonathan Gorard

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf

 *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
 *Jonathan Gorard*

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf


 @philipthrift

>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/602c40fb-f391-4664-a067-bbb1ea121555%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vacuum energy

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:57:24 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 1, 2020 at 6:37:16 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:00 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> > *Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP,*
>>>
>>
>> Mathematics has postulates. Science doesn't. The nearest equivalent for 
>> Science is experimental results. So it doesn't matter where you originally 
>> got an idea, if the idea allows you to make better predictions than anybody 
>> else (astronomically better in the case of virtual particles) then 
>> scientists will take your idea very very seriously indeed.
>>
>> *> There's an axiomatic approach to QM*
>>>
>>
>> No there is not, like every other branch of science there is only an 
>> experimental 
>> approach.
>>
>>>
> Haven't you ever taken a course in QM? Since QM "works", we accept the 
> postulates, but you can't have a theory without postulates. Or take GR; one 
> of its postulates is that space-time can be modeled as a smooth 
> pseudo-Riemannian manifold. AG
>  
>
>> > *which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on 
>>> QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and 
>>> momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, 
>>> and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. 
>>> Do you agree or not? AG*
>>>
>>
>> I neither agree nor disagree because I don't know what the hell you're 
>> talking about. 
>>
>
> Really? QM associates an Hermitian operator with every observable, such as 
> X and P. That's a POSTULATE! You never heard of that!? AG
>  
>
>> All I know is if Virtual Particles or the Uncertainty Principle or even 
>> Quantum Mechanics itself couldn't make predictions that could be confirmed 
>> experimentally no scientist would pay them any attention. And the Virtual 
>> Particle idea can make better predictions than anything else in all of 
>> Science. Full stop.
>>
>
> Of course; we accept the postulates because of excellent experimental 
> predictions, but to deny the existence of postulates is a total 
> non-understanding of QM and physics in general. AG 
>
>>
>> * > your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion 
>>> which helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in 
>>> violation of energy conservation. *
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm...I wonder if that's why they're called VIRTUAL particles and not 
>> just particles.
>>
>
> They're called virtual because they violate conservation of energy, aka 
> "off shell". but you think they're actually real and can borrow (and 
> return) energy. That's why you can't explain the justification for the 
> time-energy form of the UP. AG 
>
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
There are a host of deep problems you've swept under the rug. E.g., since 
the UP is a statistical statement (which you have yet to acknowledge), how 
do you transform it into a time-energy form for a *single* particle, a 
so-called virtual particle, that pops in and out of existence, and borrows 
and disposes of energy while violating conservation of energy? Since QED 
gives excellent predictions, it must be because the *mathematical *perturbation 
techniques are excellent; not because virtual particles are physical and 
have the properties you assert. AG

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9051ff3d-f2f4-4509-bb8b-c4977fd2d838%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

50 years from now maybe the Wolfram Model will be canonical.

Likely not.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83539a6f-2435-4279-bec1-d26af341b157%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

Has this works of Wolfram been peer reviewed?
Trying to justify allocating the time to read a large paper with unfamiliar 
concepts.
Ronald


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e710c967-09a5-43b3-8c67-812d355582f7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> > *You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of 
>> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding 
>> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed 
>> with as a student.*
>>
>
> Will this true formulation of the foundation of physics allow somebody to 
> solve a high school physics problem as well as the brainwashed version can, 
> for example what will happen when you roll a ball down a inclined plane?  
> Before Wolfram's model can explain Quarks and Gluons and find the theory of 
> everything it first has to tackle classical Physics 101. And it's one hell 
> of a long way from being able to do that. So at least for the time being 
> I'm sticking with brainwashing.
>
> John K Clark
>


Will this true formulation of the foundation of physics allow somebody to 
solve a high school physics problem as well as the brainwashed version can, 
for example what will happen when you roll a ball down a inclined plane? 



Yes. But *Python* is better.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0942ec38-068c-4102-bade-6e8f8ed20ad2%40googlegroups.com.

RE: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

[Philip Benjamin]

everything-list@googlegroups.com Saturday, May 2, 2020 8:26 AM Subject: Re: The 
Observer & The Existence of Reality
[Bruno Marchal]
That [in red italics at the bottom] is a bit unclear to me. At least Einstein 
knew that Materialism, or the belief in a physical universe is a religious, 
mystical sort of belief. With mechanism, we can formulate the mind-bod problem 
into a testable theory, so let continue the testing, and let us do 
philosophy/metaphysics/theology (chose you favorite name for the fundamental 
science) with the scientific attitude. Bruno
[Philip Benjamin]
I recognize the difficulty here. The general tendency of the “educated” West is 
to treat all and everything alike, but that is far from the reality of things 
as they are, especially between the East and West as exemplified by the ballad 
of Rudyard Kipling. Perhaps, Einstein had his own mystical notions of reality, 
but that is distinctly different from Bohr’s Taoism. Yin-Yang has nothing to do 
with particle or wave. There was no need to change the de Broglie’s 
wave-likeness to Bohr’s waviness; the former is subject to an AS IF logic, the 
latter is a BOTH & fallacy. Furthermore. Bohr indulged in the circular 
reasoning of consciousness (of what?, of whose?) collapsing wavefunction (of 
what?, electrons?, nucleons?) which collapse then creates consciousness. He had 
already assigned the electrons to various predetermined “stationary orbits” or 
“energy levels”. They are all already collapsed everywhere, including the 
slits, into rock solid energy levels.
Let me jump here to Augustine, the architect of Western civilization, 
completely ignored or detested by the WAMP. He was a Phoenician pagan 
profligate. His “consciousness” was instantly transformed by an event caused by 
“accidental” singing of children in a park 
(https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine),
 most likely unknown to Bohr who was also an indirect or incidental beneficiary 
of that “quickening”. How can any science account for that?
Augustine bridged the gap between the wisdom of Athens (classical 
antiquity) with the Revelations of Jerusalem (Hebrew knowledge) and with the 
glory of Rome (City of God, 413–426/427, was written when the empire was under 
attack by Germanic pagan tribes with un-awakened consciousness,...). He did it 
by “baptizing” Platonic metaphysics, epistemology and ideas of “forms”, into 
the Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) as a source of absolute 
goodness and truth. If it were not so, Western science could never have 
originated or developed. Bohr probably would have been practicing Lotus Pose of 
meditation.
Questions of aseity, infinite regress, origin, morals, meaning, eschaton etc. 
are not within the scope of any science. For Augustine and the West (not the 
WAMP) the buck stopped at Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural), 
not some nebulous Maya, or Moksha or Nirvana from which nobody ever returned to 
tell the truth!!
Philip Benjamin
~~~
On 1 May 2020, at 17:15, Philip Benjamin 
mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
[Philip Benjamin]
The WAMP (defined elsewhere below) has done it again with respect to the 
pandemic COVID-19. Here the observer (National Geographic) about New Zealand’s 
elimination of COVID-19 is completely devoid of reality and creates one’s own 
non-existent reality. That is typical of the WAMP and their captive audience of 
science challenged politicians, bureaucrats, journalists etc. The physicist 
Richard Feynman: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves 
the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”

OK, with “you” = a human. It is less obvious with “you” = a universal number, 
living in arithmetic (with or without oracles).
 From time immemorial the world had survived many pestilences by herd immunity. 
The West survived the Plague (Black Death), Spanish Flu (did not originate in 
Spain!) and Yellow Fever, without GIGO computer models of expert “pagans” with 
un-awakened, un-Augustinian consciousness! 
(https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine).


I am not sure a computer can really avoid this ...
Then the tools available were only commonsense, herd immunity, change of 
weather (higher temperature) etc. What is useful to about 5 million people of 
New Zealand 

Re: The Wolfram Model

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:43 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of
> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding
> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed
> with as a student.*
>

Will this true formulation of the foundation of physics allow somebody to
solve a high school physics problem as well as the brainwashed version can,
for example what will happen when you roll a ball down a inclined plane?
Before Wolfram's model can explain Quarks and Gluons and find the theory of
everything it first has to tackle classical Physics 101. And it's one hell
of a long way from being able to do that. So at least for the time being
I'm sticking with brainwashing.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3JdVHJ1TWQD7V%3DdHzp7YOM%2B6vvTfHCvUR79hoK52Cnug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The orbit of two black holes timed by the passage thru accretion disk

[John Clark]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:08 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is quite interesting.
>
> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2020-080
>

Yes, that is interesting. I was surprised the orbit of the smaller Black
Hole was so oblong, I would have thought the Gravitational Waves given off
by it would have circularized the orbit, but maybe there hasn't been enough
time.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1MDrBd3wjfwg7_qgk77KKdcXGGTMbjh%3Dijwt41VnMnig%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Observer & The Existence of Reality

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2020, at 17:15, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Philip Benjamin]
> The WAMP (defined elsewhere below) has done it again with respect to the 
> pandemic COVID-19. Here the observer (National Geographic) about New 
> Zealand’s elimination of COVID-19 is completely devoid of reality and creates 
> one’s own non-existent reality. That is typical of the WAMP and their captive 
> audience of science challenged politicians, bureaucrats, journalists etc. The 
> physicist Richard Feynman: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and 
> she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down 
> the data or not.”

OK, with “you” = a human. It is less obvious with “you” = a universal number, 
living in arithmetic (with or without oracles).




>  From time immemorial the world had survived many pestilences by herd 
> immunity. The West survived the Plague (Black Death), Spanish Flu (did not 
> originate in Spain!) and Yellow Fever, without GIGO computer models of expert 
> “pagans” with un-awakened, un-Augustinian consciousness! 
> (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine 
> ).


I am not sure a computer can really avoid this ...



> Then the tools available were only commonsense, herd immunity, change of 
> weather (higher temperature) etc. What is useful to about 5 million people of 
> New Zealand (equivalent to 0.06% of the total world population) is not 
> applicable to the whole world.  
>Science is the pursuit of truth, not the truth itself.

OK. Sure!




> It is observation, experimentation, analysis, and inference. No science is 
> perfect, biological sciences are the least precise and perfect. Unfortunately 
> many politicians, bureaucrats and journalists have become worshippers of the 
> goddess of science.


That is what we call scientism. It is of course the opposite of science, which 
is mainly modesty (and not condescendent gfke modesty, but the modesty raised 
by genuine doubt and the spirit of research).






> “The word science has become their ‘Abracadabra’ incantation. An un-awakened 
> pagan consciousness is an easy victim of scientism.


OK.



> The Western Civilization is (rather was) primarily Augustinian (who was once 
> a Phoenician profligate and immoral pagan (Pan-Gaia-n, Mother Earth devotee) 
> with un-awakened consciousness). America in particular is the product of “Two 
> Great Awakenings” which are both historic and historical. Child prodigy 
> Jonathan Edwards, founder of Princeton University,  was a leader of the first 
> Awakening. Tao, TM. Yoga, spirit-guides, witchcraft, occultism, Freudian 
> foibles, Jungian sorceries, voodoo etc., etc. have nothing to do with such 
> awakenings of reptilian, kundalini, raw, “dead”, pagan consciousness into 
> non-pagan “quickened” consciousness. The difference between the two is 
> clearly manifested / observed in the consciousness of Tao physicist Niels 
> Bohr and the Puritan physicist Michel Faraday. Bohr’s philosophy was shunned 
> by the eminent Alfred Einstein whose  favorite scientist was Faraday.

That is a bit unclear to me. At least Einstein knew that Materialism, or the 
belief in a physical universe is a religious, mystical sort of belief.

With mechanism, we can formulate the mind-bod problem into a testable theory, 
so let continue the testing, and let us do philosophy/metaphysics/theology 
(chose you favorite name for the fundamental science) with the scientific 
attitude.

Bruno





> Evidentialist
> Philip Benjamin
>CC. Journalist Aaron Gulley.  Communication & Education Depts. NZ.
>  
> Definition of WAMP. The self-righteous, grubering, intolerant 
> WAMP-the-Ingrate = Western Acade-Media Paganism (parody of WASP). Academedia 
> (acade-media): The monstrous double headed hybrid of a small minority of all 
> academics including seminarians and a large majority of all media including 
> the Hollywood, with no-question-asked Marxist-like authoritarianism as their 
> modus operandi. Based on the works of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Ben Stein, Victor 
> Mordecai, ex-Marxist David Horowitz
>  
> When decoupled at death the bio dark-matter body will be relatively at a 
> negative energy state by -E = mC^2 where m is the dead body mass. That will 
> be the magnitude of the threshold external energy needed to raise the bio 
> dark matter body to any functional state (Physical resurrection for example). 
>  <>In an early termination of pregnancy in humans, a durable and precocial 
> bio dark-matter twin, co-created at the moment of conception, can survive the 
> altricial light-matter twin.
> 
> Adapted from "Ten Implications of Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry <>"(ResearchGate) 
> and "Spiritual  Body or Physical Spirit" Sunbury Press, by Philip Benjamin 
> PhD MSc MA 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications
>  
> 

Re: A preferred direction to the universe?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Apr 2020, at 15:58, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> The universe may have a preferred direction. A new study has found a spatial 
> variation in the Fine Structure Constant (a pure number approximately equal 
> to 1/137) with a 3.9 sigma level of confidence, that means there is a 0.8% 
> chance it's just a statistical fluke. It's not good enough to claim a 
> discovery, that requires 5 sigma or only 0.023% chance of it being bogus, but 
> it's good enough to be interesting. The detected variation has a dipole 
> structure, the laws of physics that govern electromagnetism seem to get 
> stronger in one direction, and the further we look the stronger it gets, and 
> it gets weaker when we look in the oposite direction, with no change in the 
> perpendicular direction. In other words it has a dipole shape.
> 
> If this turns out to be true then Noether's theorem tells us that the Law Of 
> conservation Of Angular Momentum is only approximately true.

That would be a bad news. I will wait for much more evidence, including 
evidence from computer science. If this is confirmed, it might sill be a local 
discrepancy, due to the presence of some unknown field. The conservation law 
might remains true, but not applicable in presence of some new type of 
particle, or field.

Bruno



> 
> Four direct measurements of the fine-structure constant 13 billion years ago 
> 
> 
> This new optical work is consistent with a different study from a few weeks 
> ago that used  X rays instead of optical light, they also found a variation 
> and along the same axis.
> 
> Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform 
> 
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1m%3Djop2QxSdoHL4nhO3JR8gmGtY%2BrNTh_kU3j8_ZaBKg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FD42A01F-3119-485A-9011-0751DC3E7D46%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: How math is ruining physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2020, at 12:52, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/book-review-dream-universe-by-david.html
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder writes:
> 
> 
> In the end, Lindley [The Dream Universe: How Fundamental Physics Lost Its 
> Way, by David Lindley] puts the blame for the lack of progress in the 
> foundations of physics on mathematical abstraction, a problem he considers 
> insurmountable. “The unanswerable difficulty, as I hope has become clear by 
> now, is that researchers in fundamental physics are exploring a world, or 
> worlds, hopelessly removed from our experience… What defines those unknowable 
> worlds is perfect order, mathematical rigor, even aesthetic elegance.”
> 
> He then classifies “fundamental physics today as a kind of philosophy” and 
> explains it is now “less about a strictly rational understanding of the 
> universe and more about finding a scenario that we deem intellectually 
> respectable.” He sees no way out of this situation because “Observation, 
> experiment, and fact-finding are no longer able to guide [researchers in 
> fundamental physics], so they must set their path by other means, and they 
> have decided that pure rationality and mathematical reasoning, along with a 
> refined aesthetic sense, will do the job.”
> 
> I am sympathetic to Lindley’s take on the current status of research in the 
> foundations of physics, but I think the conclusion that there is no way 
> forward is not supported by his argument. The problem in modern physics is 
> not the abundance of mathematical abstraction per se, but that physicists 
> have forgotten mathematical abstraction is a means to an end, not an end unto 
> itself. They may have lost sight of the goal, alright, but that doesn’t mean 
> the goal has ceased existing.
> 
> It is also simply wrong that there are no experiments that could guide 
> physicists in the foundations of physics, and I say this as someone who has 
> spent the past 20 years thinking about this very problem. It’s just that 
> physicists are wasting time publishing papers about beautiful theories that 
> have no relevance for nature instead of analyzing what is going wrong in 
> their discipline and how to make progress.
> 
> In summary, Lindley’s book is not so much a competition to Lost in Math as a 
> complement. If you want to understand what is going wrong in the foundations 
> of physics, The Dream Universe is an excellent and timely introduction.
> 
> 
> (Sabine Hossenfelder also tweeted that she has no interest in delving into 
> the Wolfram Model;  then Sean Carroll tweeted he was at least interested. 
> Funny lot.)
> 
> @philipthrift


Read my papers, or ask question, but this is still to much physicalist to make 
sense with Descartes’ Mechanism,  or with Darwin foreseen of digital mechanism 
(before church-thesis!).

The reason why physics is mathematical and more and more a long way from 
intuition is already understood by Plato, who warns us that the fundamental 
truth has to be counter-intuitive: the reality primitive are ideas, or with 
mechanism, simply numbers. 

The people you are citing still confuse “fundamental physical reality” with the 
apparent (and phenomenologically real) physical reality.

Once you understand that all computations and histories exists, provably, once 
we assume *any* Turing universal ontology (like a tiny part of arithmetic 
already) it is up to the physicalist metaphysician to make their case for a 
ontologically real universe. How could that explains any physical prediction? 
Physics works because it makes an implicit ontological commitment, but that 
leads to the mind-body problem, which is basically solved with mechanism, so 
why add something that nobody has tested until QM (which confirms mechanism and 
its immaterialism)? It is no better than “God made it, period”.

Matter and consciousness are better explain without adding those ontologies for 
… no reasons, it seems to me. I don’t see any, even without mechanism.

I defend rationalism and empiricism. We have looked carefully to the physical 
universe, and up to now, it confirms Mechanism. Materialism was already refuted 
by Plato, but Aristotle missed the point, and of course, those who like the 
idea that a creation exist followed him. 

Matter is only a recent invention to make people believe that the bread is 
God’s body, or God’s son’s body.

What I do see is that many confuse theories and model, which does not help. 

Wolfram follows the tradition of ignoring the hard problem of the relation 
between the first person experiences and the possible third person theories we 
can do for explaining them. It is mechanist physicalism, which has been shown 
inconsistent.

Bruno




> 
> 
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> It's a symptom of success.  Physics has done a good job of modeling 
> everything within the scope of experiment and observation.  So now extending 
> theories means going 

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

Here is my bottom-line assessment of the Wolfram Model:

Suppose one were to take a canonical (whatever that is) formulations of GR 
(Einstein field equations) and QM (quantum field theory / path integral 
formulation) and (re)present then in the *Python *language (or your 
favorite cool language, like *Haskell*) - one that has automatic 
differentiation / differentiable programming libraries - just as done in 
numerical relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics - one would not get much 
more "interesting" (or useful) than the *Wolfram Model*.

In fact it may be more interesting and/or useful.

@philipthrift




On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:48:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> One intuitive interpretation of the evolution of a multiway system for a 
> non-causal invariant system, and therefore one in which distinct evolution 
> branches can yield non-isomorphic causal graphs, is that the system is 
> evolving according to every possible evolution history (i.e. all possible 
> updating orders), any pair of which may have observationally-distinct 
> consequences. Such an interpretation brings forth strong connotations of 
> the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, in which the overall 
> trajectory of a quantum system is taken to be described by a sum (or, more 
> properly, a functional integral) over all possible trajectories, weighted 
> by their respective amplitudes.
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:
>>
>>
>> from 
>>
>> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model*
>> Jonathan Gorard
>> 1University of Cambridge
>> 2Wolfram Research, Inc
>>
>>
>> The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization 
>> of the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity 
>> developed by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.
>>
>> The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for 
>> causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal 
>> correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a 
>> discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous 
>> Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).
>>
>> The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, 
>> exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime 
>> geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the 
>> salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds 
>> in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this 
>> work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to 
>> the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the 
>> computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that 
>> distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a 
>> theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable 
>> spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater 
>> depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes 
>> significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic 
>> formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship 
>> between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the 
>> derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to 
>> investigate several more of these questions in the course of future 
>> publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram 
>> Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and 
>> gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will 
>> entail.
>>
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of 
>>> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding 
>>> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed 
>>> with as a student.
>>>
>>> What else?
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:

 What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
 Ronald


 On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> 

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

*Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
Jonathan Gorard

One intuitive interpretation of the evolution of a multiway system for a 
non-causal invariant system, and therefore one in which distinct evolution 
branches can yield non-isomorphic causal graphs, is that the system is 
evolving according to every possible evolution history (i.e. all possible 
updating orders), any pair of which may have observationally-distinct 
consequences. Such an interpretation brings forth strong connotations of 
the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, in which the overall 
trajectory of a quantum system is taken to be described by a sum (or, more 
properly, a functional integral) over all possible trajectories, weighted 
by their respective amplitudes.


@philipthrift


On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:27:11 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:
>
>
> from 
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
> 1University of Cambridge
> 2Wolfram Research, Inc
>
>
> The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of 
> the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed 
> by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.
>
> The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for 
> causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal 
> correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a 
> discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous 
> Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).
>
> The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, 
> exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime 
> geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the 
> salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds 
> in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this 
> work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to 
> the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the 
> computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that 
> distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a 
> theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable 
> spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater 
> depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes 
> significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic 
> formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship 
> between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the 
> derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to 
> investigate several more of these questions in the course of future 
> publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram 
> Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and 
> gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will 
> entail.
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of 
>> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding 
>> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed 
>> with as a student.
>>
>> What else?
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>>
>>> What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
>>> Ronald
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:


 The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
 foundation" of physics has a name: 
 *The Wolfram Model.*



 *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
 *Model*
 Jonathan Gorard

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf

 *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
 *Jonathan Gorard*

 https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf


 @philipthrift

>>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/47200a17-641f-4680-822c-52cb7d4d1e0a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

I roughly see how this part (gravitation in the Wolfram Model) works out:


from 

*Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram Model*
Jonathan Gorard
1University of Cambridge
2Wolfram Research, Inc


The Wolfram Model can be thought of as being an abstract generalization of 
the “Causal Dynamical Triangulation” approach to quantum gravity developed 
by Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz.

The first essential step in the derivation of special relativity for 
causal-invariant Wolfram Model systems is to make precise the formal 
correspondence between directed edges connecting updating events in a 
discrete causal graph, and timelike-separation of events in a continuous 
Minkowski space (or, more generally, in a Lorentzian manifold).

The present article has demonstrated the Wolfram Model to be a novel, 
exciting and potentially highly fruitful discrete model for spacetime 
geometry, exhibiting discrete analogs of many (and possibly all) of the 
salient mathematical features of Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds 
in limiting cases. There exist a variety of open problems arising from this 
work, ranging from the possibility of computing higher-order corrections to 
the discrete Einstein field equations, to determining the 
computability-theoretic and complexity-theoretic properties that 
distinguish inertial and non-inertial reference frames, to developing a 
theory of general relativity that holds in manifolds with variable 
spacetime dimensions. A few of these problems are discussed in greater 
depth in our accompanying publication on quantum mechanics, which makes 
significant use of both the special relativistic and general relativistic 
formalisms that we develop inthis paper (especially the relationship 
between confluence, causal invariance and Lorentz covariance, and the 
derivation of the discrete Einstein field equations), and we intend to 
investigate several more of these questions in the course of future 
publications. The present work, however, has at least revealed the Wolfram 
Model to be a plausible fundamental model for classical relativistic and 
gravitational physics, and we eagerly await the implications that this will 
entail.



@philipthrift

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:43:25 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> You will be introduced to the true formulation of the foundations of 
> physics -  which will lead to its unification - leaving behind the deluding 
> morass of the old mathematical-physics foundations you were brainwashed 
> with as a student.
>
> What else?
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>> What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
>> Ronald
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
>>> foundation" of physics has a name: 
>>> *The Wolfram Model.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
>>> *Model*
>>> Jonathan Gorard
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
>>> *Jonathan Gorard*
>>>
>>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3a2b2423-a27a-4dd8-be67-a0cfe58395dc%40googlegroups.com.