Re: Stenger on Initial Low Entropy

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 3:38 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:07:32AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > It is refuted by the idea of unitary evolution in QM. Unitary evolution
> means
> > that everything is reversible,  If new microstates are created as the
> universe
> > expands, then this expansion cannot be reversed:  the creation of such
> > microstates gives an absolute arrow of time. This is generally rejected,
> > because physicists tend to believe in unitary dynamics. If dynamics are
> not
> > unitary, then the universe is not governed by the Schrodinger equation,
> and
> > arguments for the multiverse collapse.
>
> I'm not sure the last point follows, perhaps you can expand on it. But
> it is an interesting argument that the Layzer style "increase in
> microstates"
> should be enough to prevent a Hawking style "wavefunction of the
> universe".
>

I was talking about the Everett-style quantum many worlds. Other types of
multiverse (such as the existence of other cosmological Hubble volumes) are
not necessarily affected. Hawking's "wave function of the universe" is a
definite casualty if unitary evolution is denied.



> Could the ideas be made compatible by have the number of accessible
> microstates increasing over time, due to the expansion of the
> universe, but that the total number remains constant, or is even
> infinite? Or does that place us right back at the original problem of
> having a low entropy initial state.
>

I don't really understand this. An infinite number of microstates makes
little sense in standard thermodynamics.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLR0tOVHvtca-rtPUPV7n6DOD%3DqqFMjicoTduC2DQLEXVg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Stenger on Initial Low Entropy

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:07:32AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> 
> It is refuted by the idea of unitary evolution in QM. Unitary evolution means
> that everything is reversible,  If new microstates are created as the universe
> expands, then this expansion cannot be reversed:  the creation of such
> microstates gives an absolute arrow of time. This is generally rejected,
> because physicists tend to believe in unitary dynamics. If dynamics are not
> unitary, then the universe is not governed by the Schrodinger equation, and
> arguments for the multiverse collapse.

I'm not sure the last point follows, perhaps you can expand on it. But
it is an interesting argument that the Layzer style "increase in microstates"
should be enough to prevent a Hawking style "wavefunction of the
universe".

Could the ideas be made compatible by have the number of accessible
microstates increasing over time, due to the expansion of the
universe, but that the total number remains constant, or is even
infinite? Or does that place us right back at the original problem of
having a low entropy initial state.


-- 


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/20201016043814.GA4042%40zen.

Re: Stenger on Initial Low Entropy

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> I noticed that Victor Stenger's position on entropy, as described here:
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf on page 7, appears to be the same as
> described by the  cosmologist David Layzer in a 1975 issue of Scientific
> American:
> https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/media/pdf/2008-05-21_1975-carroll-story.pdf
>
> The basic idea, which is described graphically here:
> https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/layzer/arrow_of_time.html
>
> It is a counter-argument to the commonly expressed idea that the universe
> began in a low entropy state. Rather, it explains how the expansion of the
> universe increases the state of maximum possible entropy. If the universe
> expands more quickly than an equilibrium can be reached, then there is room
> for complexity (information / negative entropy) to increase.
>
> Why is it that the "low entropy" myth is so persistent, and this alternate
> explanation is so little known? Some physicists, such as Penrose are still
> looking for alternate explanations for the special low entropy state.  What
> fraction of physicists are aware of Stenger's/Layzer's view? Does it appear
> in any physics textbooks? Has it been refuted?
>


It is refuted by the idea of unitary evolution in QM. Unitary evolution
means that everything is reversible,  If new microstates are created as the
universe expands, then this expansion cannot be reversed:  the creation of
such microstates gives an absolute arrow of time. This is generally
rejected, because physicists tend to believe in unitary dynamics. If
dynamics are not unitary, then the universe is not governed by the
Schrodinger equation, and arguments for the multiverse collapse.

Bruce

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQ2JpTSFzu3ArtVVunfYFjnHDm7LEfLhJx1rDPV-aSDhg%40mail.gmail.com.

Stenger on Initial Low Entropy

[Jason Resch]

I noticed that Victor Stenger's position on entropy, as described here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf on page 7, appears to be the same as
described by the  cosmologist David Layzer in a 1975 issue of Scientific
American:
https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/media/pdf/2008-05-21_1975-carroll-story.pdf

The basic idea, which is described graphically here:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/layzer/arrow_of_time.html

It is a counter-argument to the commonly expressed idea that the universe
began in a low entropy state. Rather, it explains how the expansion of the
universe increases the state of maximum possible entropy. If the universe
expands more quickly than an equilibrium can be reached, then there is room
for complexity (information / negative entropy) to increase.

Why is it that the "low entropy" myth is so persistent, and this alternate
explanation is so little known? Some physicists, such as Penrose are still
looking for alternate explanations for the special low entropy state.  What
fraction of physicists are aware of Stenger's/Layzer's view? Does it appear
in any physics textbooks? Has it been refuted?

Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUjTUKgaOYg-VBtUUw_Ae_wyJ3MVZX04CTKOmmOK0wdmQw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

[PGC]

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 4:39:02 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2020, at 19:23, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I would say you are claiming that the behavior of many Black on White 
> attacks is not racism, 
>
>
> I did not claim anything like that. The black and the white who called 
> themselves antiracists are racists, for example, and I did denunciate them 
> as such.
>
> Racism has no color, and unfortunately present in most large group of 
> population. 
>
>
>
> but I would say it is a feature of their racism. Psychopathic traits are 
> well-known among nearly all politicians that I have seen.
>
>
> I have met only one people who match Trump, and he was not a politician. I 
> don’t see any psychopathic tendencies in most actual member of the US 
> government. I see only one psychopath there, and many cowards or special 
> interests around.
>
>
>
> Empathy, which is the hallmark phrase of the liberal/socialist/communist, 
> is over-rated and is used as a tool by the "Left" for claiming the "moral" 
> high ground. 
>
>
> The leftists often believe that the moral is their business, but my 
> opinion is that it is the contrary. But none can claim it without losing 
> it, actually. Here the right is better in not claiming it. We agree on 
> this, but let me tell you that I think Trump is an extreme leftist : he 
> loves Putin, Kim-Young-Un, etc.
>

He's left when it comes to his cronies and loyalists and will say left 
things like "We have wonderful Doctors... People shouldn't be afraid of the 
virus... Everybody should have this treatment!", which is why everybody 
that gets infected is getting a military helicopter to take them to a 
military hospital and have a whole floor with a dedicated team of doctors 
procuring them steroids, antibody cocktails etc. And nobody notes how left 
this wish is, which is disappointing as people should get the meds they 
vote for somehow; and republicans should nowadays not even get the meds... 
they should just get the bill and wire the money immediately. 

And there has to be a scene where he had to sign an informed consent form 
due to the experimental status of some of those drugs. And the clerk 
should've said: "Wait.. wtf? You're Donald Trump... you do things like 
acknowledge the severity of the disease, admit to downplaying it, and will 
probably downplay it and acknowledge its severity and blame people ten 
thousand times on Twitter while you recover... I'm not sure you qualify as 
having the agency to sign something like an informed consent document. I 
think your name and... well, anything having to do with either information 
or consent should be separated as far as possible; and by this I mean not 
even the same set of multiverses... further than that... like ontologies 
away from each other. PGC 
 

-- 
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/28fd5add-1182-410d-a0ac-f3281e867ad3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/15/2020 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


You should have read Vic Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". 
Vic points out how many examples of  fine tuning are
mis-conceived...including Hoyle's prediction of an excited state
of carbon.  Vic also points out the fallacy of just considering
one parameter when the parameter space is high dimensional.


Hi Brent,

Thanks for the suggestions. I did read Barnes's critique of TFOFT ( 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 ) and I just now read Stenger's reply: 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf


I think they both make some valid points. It may be that many 
parameters we believe are fine tuned will turn out to have other 
explanations. But I also think in domains where we do have 
understandings, such as in computational models (such as algorithmic 
information thery: what is the shortest program that produces X), or 
in the set of all possible cellular automata that only consider the 
states of adjacent cells, the number that are interesting (neither too 
simple nor too chaotic) is a small fraction of the total. So there is 
probably fine tuning, but it is, as you mention, extremely hard to 
quantify.



But my general criticism of fine-tuning is two-fold. First, the
concept is not well defined.  There is no apriori probability
distribution over possible values.  If the possible values are
infinite, then any realized value is improbable.  Fine tuning is
all in the intuition. Charts are drawn showing little "we are
here" zones to prove the fine tuning.  But the scales are
sometimes linear, sometimes logarithmic.  And why those parameters
and not the square?...or the square root?  Bayesian inference is
not invariant under change of parameters.


At least for the cosmological constant, there seems to be some 
understanding of its probability distribution, and it is relatively 
independent of the other parameters in that it is unrelated to 
nucleosynthesis, chemistry, etc. Therefore it is our best candidate to 
consider in isolation from the other parameters in the 
high-dimensional space.



Second, calling it "fine-tuning" implies some kind of process of
"tuning" or "selection".  But that's gratuitous.  Absent
supernatural miracles, we must find ourselves in a universe in
which we are nomologically possible.  And that is true whether
there is one universe or infinitely many.  So it cannot be
evidence one way or the other for the number of universes.


Let's say we did have an understanding of the distribution of possible 
universes and the fraction of which supported conscious life. If we 
discover the fraction to be 1 in 1,000,000 would this not motivate a 
belief in there being more than one universe?


No, because it is equally evidence that one universe (this one) was 
realized out of the ensemble.  You are relying on an intuition that it 
is easier to explain why all 1,000,000 exist than to explain why this 
one exists.  But that's an intuition about explaining things, not about 
any objective probability.  Every day things happen that are more 
improbable than a million-to-one.  Until Everett no one thought it 
necessary to suppose all the counterfactuals happened "somewhere else".


Brent



Jason


Brent

On 10/14/2020 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning,
and how the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete
reality. I thought others on this list might appreciate it:
https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/

I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.

Jason
-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%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/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> You should have read Vic Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning".  Vic
> points out how many examples of  fine tuning are mis-conceived...including
> Hoyle's prediction of an excited state of carbon.  Vic also points out the
> fallacy of just considering one parameter when the parameter space is high
> dimensional.
>

Hi Brent,

Thanks for the suggestions. I did read Barnes's critique of TFOFT (
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 ) and I just now read Stenger's reply:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359.pdf

I think they both make some valid points. It may be that many parameters we
believe are fine tuned will turn out to have other explanations. But I also
think in domains where we do have understandings, such as in computational
models (such as algorithmic information thery: what is the shortest program
that produces X), or in the set of all possible cellular automata that only
consider the states of adjacent cells, the number that are interesting
(neither too simple nor too chaotic) is a small fraction of the total. So
there is probably fine tuning, but it is, as you mention, extremely hard to
quantify.


>
> But my general criticism of fine-tuning is two-fold.  First, the concept
> is not well defined.  There is no apriori probability distribution over
> possible values.  If the possible values are infinite, then any realized
> value is improbable.  Fine tuning is all in the intuition.  Charts are
> drawn showing little "we are here" zones to prove the fine tuning.  But the
> scales are sometimes linear, sometimes logarithmic.  And why those
> parameters and not the square?...or the square root?  Bayesian inference is
> not invariant under change of parameters.
>

At least for the cosmological constant, there seems to be some
understanding of its probability distribution, and it is relatively
independent of the other parameters in that it is unrelated to
nucleosynthesis, chemistry, etc. Therefore it is our best candidate to
consider in isolation from the other parameters in the high-dimensional
space.


>
> Second, calling it "fine-tuning" implies some kind of process of "tuning"
> or "selection".  But that's gratuitous.  Absent supernatural miracles, we
> must find ourselves in a universe in which we are nomologically possible.
> And that is true whether there is one universe or infinitely many.  So it
> cannot be evidence one way or the other for the number of universes.
>

Let's say we did have an understanding of the distribution of possible
universes and the fraction of which supported conscious life. If we
discover the fraction to be 1 in 1,000,000 would this not motivate a belief
in there being more than one universe?

Jason



>
> Brent
>
> On 10/14/2020 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning, and how
> the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete reality. I thought
> others on this list might appreciate it:
> https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/
>
> I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.
>
> Jason
> --
> 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/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%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/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUiDSFtDjH%2BVN0j-6q%2BTUNq0N9c-25hd-cZJJowjciOSsg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

You should have read Vic Stenger's "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning". Vic 
points out how many examples of  fine tuning are 
mis-conceived...including Hoyle's prediction of an excited state of 
carbon.  Vic also points out the fallacy of just considering one 
parameter when the parameter space is high dimensional.


But my general criticism of fine-tuning is two-fold.  First, the concept 
is not well defined.  There is no apriori probability distribution over 
possible values.  If the possible values are infinite, then any realized 
value is improbable.  Fine tuning is all in the intuition.  Charts are 
drawn showing little "we are here" zones to prove the fine tuning.  But 
the scales are sometimes linear, sometimes logarithmic.  And why those 
parameters and not the square?...or the square root?  Bayesian inference 
is not invariant under change of parameters.


Second, calling it "fine-tuning" implies some kind of process of 
"tuning" or "selection".  But that's gratuitous.  Absent supernatural 
miracles, we must find ourselves in a universe in which we are 
nomologically possible.  And that is true whether there is one universe 
or infinitely many.  So it cannot be evidence one way or the other for 
the number of universes.


Brent

On 10/14/2020 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning, and 
how the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete reality. 
I thought others on this list might appreciate it:

https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/

I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.

Jason
--
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/CA%2BBCJUiipTLGN%3DLGdhyUMKMLPRvpUhxJk77rwvmLvgyf252EjA%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/39a9adbd-c687-634c-736a-3cfb940d6cd1%40verizon.net.

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

[Lawrence Crowell]

This is the second time. I tend to work mostly off line. That way I do not 
have an open port, and in some ways this is a big part of my defense 
against malware and hacking. If I am not online I can’t be attacked. 
However, in writing in the group editor, big mistake, I hit send and my 
message disappeared. Writing one long thing in Word, again off-line.

I read past the point of Hoyle’s tri-alpha physics. Too bad he did not get 
the Nobel for that, even though he was wrong on steady state theory. I have 
not gotten to the point about coincidence, providence and multiverse. 

My thinking is that what is real is a quantum mechanical issue. Reality is 
the postulate that a system has some existential content prior to a 
measurement that is related to the outcome of that measurement. The EPR 
argument and Bell inequalities show you can’t have locality and reality 
applied as postulates to a system. You can use one or the other, but not 
both. So what is real, certainly if we appeal to Bohr is the classical 
world. The classical state of the universe is a set of quantum states that 
are stable against quantum noise and decoherence. 

The upper bound on the cosmological constant is Λ = 1/ℓ_p^2 for ℓ_p the 
Planck length of 10^{-35}m. Therefore the Planck value of a cosmological 
constant for a quantum cosmology is Λ = 10^{70}m^{-2}. This is evaluate 
from 

〈0|H|0〉 = sum_{n=0}^∞nħω = E_{planck} (with cut off at Planck energy_) 

and with cosmological constant this is ~ 1/E_planck^2 = 10^{70}m^{-2} the 
observed is 10^{-52}m^{-2}. This is the source of the conundrum. What we 
observe is Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2}. This is the source of this huge disparity. 
The Higgs field, which bears some relationship IMO to the quartic potential 
of inflationary cosmology, has M = 125GeV and it in a condensate with the 
weak interaction bosons confers mass to them. The Yukawa Lagrangians give 
fermions mass. This is very small, far smaller than the Planck energy. This 
with the wide gap in cosmological constants enforces a classicality. The 
domain of quantum gravitation is so far removed from quantum physics that 
decoherent large masses obey classical physics. Classicaliity in some way 
is what is reality.

In string/M-theory the cosmological constant emerges from Yang-Mills gauge 
fluxes through D-branes wrapped on Calabi-Yau compactified spaces. There 
are 10^{500} or more of these configurations, so this is a huge sample 
space. This is computed with the Hodge triangle of Eguchi-Hansen 3-forms. 
This is only really known for a static situation, which is still tough. 
Then there is the Vafa swampland, where it turns out strings and branes do 
not work in spacetimes with Λ > 0, and so things are broken here.

Finally when it comes to observers if k = 0 there are an infinite number of 
them and it might then be Wheeler delayed choice is an ensemble. This 
delayed choice measurement is where the slit an electron passed through is 
given by a measurement after the wave has passed the slits. So IGUS or ET 
in the universe may fix these values through their measurements. 
LC
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:16:18 AM UTC-5 Jason wrote:

> Hi Lawrence,
>
> First I want to thank you for your highly detailed reply. I have some 
> further comments and questions below, if you don't mind.
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing wrong in particular with the idea of fine tuning. This 
>> does not logically imply a fine tuner. If there is a fine tuner, then it is 
>> reasonable to say there is fine tuning. However, the converse or modus 
>> tolens does not hold; fine tuning does not logically imply a fine tuner. 
>> Therefore, fine tuning is a necessary condition of a fine tuner, but not 
>> sufficient.
>>
>
> Towards the end I use fine-tuning, and Bayesian inference to decide the 
> trilemma as defined by Martin Rees: coincidence, providence, or multiverse.
>
> Given the appearance of fine tuning, we update our priors and effectively 
> rule out coincidence and providence with high confidence. So we cannot 
> decide there is a fine tuner, but we can be confident in "not coincidence" 
> whose probability is equal to (fine-tuner or multiverse). The article 
> concludes with a decision that both answers imply the existence of 
> something beyond this universe, and quite plausibly the existence of 
> universes of a higher order and complexity than our own, containing 
> entities superior to ourselves.
>
>  
>
>>
>> I started reading this, but it is clearly not something I am going to 
>> finish over early morning coffee. Yet the article so far covers in layman's 
>> terms stuff I am well acquainted with. The multiverse is often cited as a 
>> way around this. A vast plurality of cosmologies is a way to argue how the 
>> particular observable cosmos is fine tuned. It is similar to the argument 
>> with planets; given a large number of them it is not surprising that a few 
>> are such that life may 

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Oct 2020, at 19:23, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would say you are claiming that the behavior of many Black on White attacks 
> is not racism,

I did not claim anything like that. The black and the white who called 
themselves antiracists are racists, for example, and I did denunciate them as 
such.

Racism has no color, and unfortunately present in most large group of 
population. 



> but I would say it is a feature of their racism. Psychopathic traits are 
> well-known among nearly all politicians that I have seen.

I have met only one people who match Trump, and he was not a politician. I 
don’t see any psychopathic tendencies in most actual member of the US 
government. I see only one psychopath there, and many cowards or special 
interests around.



> Empathy, which is the hallmark phrase of the liberal/socialist/communist, is 
> over-rated and is used as a tool by the "Left" for claiming the "moral" high 
> ground.

The leftists often believe that the moral is their business, but my opinion is 
that it is the contrary. But none can claim it without losing it, actually. 
Here the right is better in not claiming it. We agree on this, but let me tell 
you that I think Trump is an extreme leftist : he loves Putin, Kim-Young-Un, 
etc.




> Yet, such empathy in most social programs (US) yield almost nothing for the 
> intended beneficiaries. In the 1960's President Lyndon John declared (as a 
> distraction from Vietnam) a War on Poverty. Funded into the billions and then 
> hundreds of billions through the decades-it achieved nothing, Bruno. 
> 
> The Green Left that comprises much of California, (another example) have let 
> the forests grow wild over the last 30 years,

They own only a few percentage. They are owned by the federals. 



> and, as with the same policy-attitude in Australia, now have 2 firestorm 
> season per year.

That was predicted by those who defended the use of hemp instead of petrol, 
although I doubt it would be so quick.




> On orange man, the liberal/socialist/communists

Note that in Europa, the term “liberal” is used for the right (liberal = 
freedom of enterprise), and the socialist are *quite* different from the 
Communist (except the Italian communist perhaps, but they were quickly 
corrupted by the mafia). Socialism has almost be for “communist who accept the 
free-market, the democracy (regular election) and who ceased all collaboration 
with the USSR). The Italian communist did separate themselves clearly from the 
USSR.

For me, the most important thing is that we can vote, regularly, and with a far 
amount of fairness. Most people vote on the right when the state go to much on 
the left, and vice versa. Voting is the tax level regulator.




> fixate on him as an aspect they can unify against. as if somehow, if he is 
> gone, everything will roll their way. This, I contend , is simply not the 
> case, because the intentions (seemingly)  of the Left 
> (liberals/socialists/communists) are directed upon the rest of us. Basically, 
> a Junta of Soviets, not unlike the old Soviets, wbut instead are backed  by 
> Crony Capitalist$,

Like the prohibitionists? Yes, those are real bastards. But most capitalists 
are no crony (I mean up to that level).

With Trump, we have something new: someone who does not even trie to hides his 
lies. Trump is not just a criminal, he normalises criminality. 



> will be, or in fact are, the new masters of the world.

The society for a drug free America is financed by a bunch of different rotten 
corporation and groups which are related to the industries of alcohol, tobacco, 
jail, weapon, and scientology, notably).

I don’t see them as masters of the worlds, but as clever bandits. It is up to 
us to vote for someone adding a bit more of logic in education, so that people 
will get the flaw in prohibition, for example, and stop to vote for people 
having any complacency with the prohibitionists. Then we can think fighting 
against other similar white collar bandits. But this requires that those near 
the top in the government acts, at least in appearance, like impeccable. 




> Every night in the US the democrats encourage and permit riots, arson, 
> looting, in the regions they control.

I have search a long time information on this. That is a lie. Biden condemned 
it clearly. But the Militia are pro-Trump, and are training themselves, 
preparing a civil war, that they call "Civil War II”. That’s frightening, and 
doubly so when the President is unable to criticise them; on the contrary, he 
call them to stand by...




> Rioters are immediately released because of Covid, or bailed out by the 
> funding of the rich, and are back doing crimes once more.

The regulation of weapon, and the disclosure on the NRA and its link with the 
extreme right should accelerate that process. Here the left has always seemed 
to be more reasonable than the right.


> In the US, The riots will never cease as they are a tool 

Re: Penrose - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

[Lawrence Crowell]

This is something we will probably never know for sure.

LC

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 11:20:27 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4
>

-- 
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/efa5d3eb-47b7-4ac4-89ef-6eee6cfdb624n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

[Jason Resch]

Hi Lawrence,

First I want to thank you for your highly detailed reply. I have some
further comments and questions below, if you don't mind.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is nothing wrong in particular with the idea of fine tuning. This
> does not logically imply a fine tuner. If there is a fine tuner, then it is
> reasonable to say there is fine tuning. However, the converse or modus
> tolens does not hold; fine tuning does not logically imply a fine tuner.
> Therefore, fine tuning is a necessary condition of a fine tuner, but not
> sufficient.
>

Towards the end I use fine-tuning, and Bayesian inference to decide the
trilemma as defined by Martin Rees: coincidence, providence, or multiverse.

Given the appearance of fine tuning, we update our priors and effectively
rule out coincidence and providence with high confidence. So we cannot
decide there is a fine tuner, but we can be confident in "not coincidence"
whose probability is equal to (fine-tuner or multiverse). The article
concludes with a decision that both answers imply the existence of
something beyond this universe, and quite plausibly the existence of
universes of a higher order and complexity than our own, containing
entities superior to ourselves.



>
> I started reading this, but it is clearly not something I am going to
> finish over early morning coffee. Yet the article so far covers in layman's
> terms stuff I am well acquainted with. The multiverse is often cited as a
> way around this. A vast plurality of cosmologies is a way to argue how the
> particular observable cosmos is fine tuned. It is similar to the argument
> with planets; given a large number of them it is not surprising that a few
> are such that life may emerge. Of course with this multiverse I suspect
> that many of these are not real cosmologies.
>
> The cosmological constant for all putative cosmologies in the string
> landscape, based on D-brane theory with gauge fluxes through branes wrapped
> on Calabi-Yau spaces, have cosmological constants Λ much larger than that
> for the observable universe. The Hubble constant H = (a'/a), a the scale
> factor and a' = da/dt, also equals H = √(Λc^2/3) is numerically H =
> 72km/sec-Mpc and 68km/sec-Mpc, where these two come from galaxy data and
> CMB data. This corresponds to a cosmological constant Λ ≃ 10^{-52}m^{-2}.
> Most putative cosmologies have much larger values, and many orders of
> magnitude larger. Such a de Sitter or FLRW spacetime would expand so
> rapidly that nothing could form. In fact many have Λ ≃ 10^{66}m/s^2 with
> the upper bound Λ ≃ 10^{70}m/s^2. The difference between this and what we
> observe is the 122 order of magnitude issue.
>


Given the uncertainties around the probability distributions for the other
constants of nature, the article uses Λ as the chief variable in deriving
the improbability of the tuning.

Is there a difference assumed between how Λ emerges in string theory vs.
how it is assumed to emerge from quantum field theory?  Is it, in both
cases, the sum of order-one positive and negative numbers?

I have seen some say it is tuned to 60decimal places, and others that it is
tuned to 120 decimal places. What accounts for this difference in
estimation, is it based on the assumption of supersymmetry?


>
> The observed cosmological constant is a manifestation of the quantum
> vacuum energy density, or in particular that vacuum energy density that
> plays a role in gravitation. This vacuum energy ρ defines the cosmological
> constant Λ = 8πGρ/3c^3 and for the observable universe this is quite small,
> far smaller than the 123 order of magnitude larger figure a naïve summation
> of QFT modes would suggest. However, there is a difference between the high
> energy vacuum, or called false vacuum, and the low energy physical vacuum.
> A quantum tunneling from the false to physical vacuum results in a gap of
> mass-energy density in every volume of space, and this generates matter and
> radiation. The sort of skewed Ginsburg-Landau potential involved is seen in
> the figure below.
> [image: quartic asymmetric potential.png]
>
>

This is something I wondered about. Is it assumed that a high Λ (or high
vacuum energy) is what powered inflation, and then later this decayed to
its much smaller value, which drives a doubling in billions of years rather
than in 10^-35 seconds? Wouldn't that require one of the quantum fields to
disappear, or at least undergo significant change?




> There is a linear term in fields that skews this, and this I think is some
> manifestation of renormalization theory, where the large majority of these
> are analogous to virtual particles that give a mass-renormalization of
> cosmologies. This would I think sweep the vast majority of these out of
> ontological existence or classicality. I do not know if this is complete so
> there is the reduction of the multiverse to a single universe, or whether
> this is a 

Re: Evidence for, and implications of, fine-tuning

[Lawrence Crowell]

There is nothing wrong in particular with the idea of fine tuning. This 
does not logically imply a fine tuner. If there is a fine tuner, then it is 
reasonable to say there is fine tuning. However, the converse or modus 
tolens does not hold; fine tuning does not logically imply a fine tuner. 
Therefore, fine tuning is a necessary condition of a fine tuner, but not 
sufficient.

I started reading this, but it is clearly not something I am going to 
finish over early morning coffee. Yet the article so far covers in layman's 
terms stuff I am well acquainted with. The multiverse is often cited as a 
way around this. A vast plurality of cosmologies is a way to argue how the 
particular observable cosmos is fine tuned. It is similar to the argument 
with planets; given a large number of them it is not surprising that a few 
are such that life may emerge. Of course with this multiverse I suspect 
that many of these are not real cosmologies. 

The cosmological constant for all putative cosmologies in the string 
landscape, based on D-brane theory with gauge fluxes through branes wrapped 
on Calabi-Yau spaces, have cosmological constants Λ much larger than that 
for the observable universe. The Hubble constant H = (a'/a), a the scale 
factor and a' = da/dt, also equals H = √(Λc^2/3) is numerically H = 
72km/sec-Mpc and 68km/sec-Mpc, where these two come from galaxy data and 
CMB data. This corresponds to a cosmological constant Λ ≃ 10^{-52}m^{-2}. 
Most putative cosmologies have much larger values, and many orders of 
magnitude larger. Such a de Sitter or FLRW spacetime would expand so 
rapidly that nothing could form. In fact many have Λ ≃ 10^{66}m/s^2 with 
the upper bound Λ ≃ 10^{70}m/s^2. The difference between this and what we 
observe is the 122 order of magnitude issue. 

The observed cosmological constant is a manifestation of the quantum vacuum 
energy density, or in particular that vacuum energy density that plays a 
role in gravitation. This vacuum energy ρ defines the cosmological constant 
Λ = 8πGρ/3c^3 and for the observable universe this is quite small, far 
smaller than the 123 order of magnitude larger figure a naïve summation of 
QFT modes would suggest. However, there is a difference between the high 
energy vacuum, or called false vacuum, and the low energy physical vacuum. 
A quantum tunneling from the false to physical vacuum results in a gap of 
mass-energy density in every volume of space, and this generates matter and 
radiation. The sort of skewed Ginsburg-Landau potential involved is seen in 
the figure below.
[image: quartic asymmetric potential.png]

There is a linear term in fields that skews this, and this I think is some 
manifestation of renormalization theory, where the large majority of these 
are analogous to virtual particles that give a mass-renormalization of 
cosmologies. This would I think sweep the vast majority of these out of 
ontological existence or classicality. I do not know if this is complete so 
there is the reduction of the multiverse to a single universe, or whether 
this is a reduction of the multiverse to a much smaller set.

It has to be noted that the tuning for flat, spherical or hyperbolic 
geometry or topology of a spatial surface is not that hard to understand. 
The Hamiltonian for the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime 
is

ℋ = ½(a’/a)^2 - 4πGρ/3c^2 + k/a^2,

so that the Hamiltonian constraint Nℋ = 0 in ADM general relativity means 
it is not hard to see this is zero. The energy density is ρ = ρ_vac + 
ρ_energy for the vacuum and mass-energy in the spacetime. The additional 
term k/a^2 gives flat, spherical and hyperbolic space for k = 0, k = 1 and 
k = -1. If k = 0 then the vacuum energy density is constant. This is in 
various ways more reasonable.

In this renormalization possibility somehow the observable universe may 
have emerged. In ways not entirely clear this may have selected the world 
we observe. So there are open questions. Maybe even the role of conscious 
observers in the universe play some Wheeler delayed choice experiment in 
measuring the early universe to select for the observed universe. 

LC


On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 9:38:40 PM UTC-5 Jason wrote:

> I just finished an article on all the science behind fine-tuning, and how 
> the evidence suggests an infinite, and possibly complete reality. I thought 
> others on this list might appreciate it:
> https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/
>
> I welcome any discussion, feedback, or corrections.
>
> Jason
>

-- 
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/c67a54a2-64bc-4818-b8d5-c9bcf361940en%40googlegroups.com.