Re: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

[John Clark]

I think it depends on if the Planck Length and Planck Time have physical
significance, it they do then spacetime is not continuous and Real Numbers
are not real; but if spacetime is smooth and continuous as the data from
Gamma Ray Bursters seems to indicate then Real Numbers are real and there
is no hope of ever developing a Quantum Theory Of Gravity.

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/CAJPayv0qWkHSQHUw0keHEv_BY1NfhyGmu9FHp%2BzR8qVkjVvhKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:36 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> The Planck unit of length and time does not mean space or spacetime is
> discrete. All it means is this is the smallest scale one can localize a
> quantum bit of information. It does not mean that spacetime is somehow
> discrete.*
>

If discrete spacetime does not mean there is a smallest scale that a Qubit
of information can be localized then what does "discrete spacetime" mean?

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/CAJPayv1_xTvxp6jS%3DJ58RRxsrCNYW__%3DoOZiOB%2BYU1Laj2ruDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/30/2019 2:29 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:36 PM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:


/> The Planck unit of length and time does not mean space or
spacetime is discrete. All it means is this is the smallest scale
one can localize a quantum bit of information. It does not mean
that spacetime is somehow discrete./


If discrete spacetime does not mean there is a smallest scale that a 
Qubit of information can be localized then what does "discrete 
spacetime" mean?


Discrete spacetime does mean there is a smallest scale at which things 
can be localized.  But that there is a smallest scale at which things 
can be located doesn't mean spacetime is discrete.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74db10c4-8859-2bc2-f1a1-b653461c3c33%40verizon.net.

Re: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 3:08:42 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> I think it depends on if the Planck Length and Planck Time have physical 
> significance, it they do then spacetime is not continuous and Real Numbers 
> are not real; but if spacetime is smooth and continuous as the data from 
> Gamma Ray Bursters seems to indicate then Real Numbers are real and there 
> is no hope of ever developing a Quantum Theory Of Gravity. 
>
> John K Clark 
>

The Planck unit of length and time does not mean space or spacetime is 
discrete. All it means is this is the smallest scale one can localize a 
quantum bit of information. It does not mean that spacetime is somehow 
discrete.

LC 

-- 
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/7e823dfc-452d-4976-baf9-b732bc3fc632%40googlegroups.com.

Are Real Numbers Really Real?

[Philip Thrift]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06824

(V2: several *mineurs* changes ) !

Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics. Are Real 
Numbers Really Real?
Nicolas Gisin 

(Submitted on 19 Mar 2018 (v1 ), last 
revised 31 May 2019 (this version, v3))

It is usual to identify initial conditions of classical dynamical systems 
with mathematical real numbers. However, almost all real numbers contain an 
infinite amount of information. I argue that a finite volume of space can't 
contain more than a finite amount of information, hence that the 
mathematical real numbers are not physically relevant. Moreover, a better 
terminology for the so-called real numbers is ``random numbers'', as their 
series of bits are truly random. I propose an alternative classical 
mechanics, which is empirically equivalent to classical mechanics, but uses 
only finite-information numbers. This alternative classical mechanics is 
non-deterministic, despite the use of deterministic equations, in a way 
similar to quantum theory. Interestingly, both alternative classical 
mechanics and quantum theories can be supplemented by additional variables 
in such a way that the supplemented theory is deterministic. Most 
physicists straightforwardly supplement classical theory with real numbers 
to which they attribute physical existence, while most physicists reject 
Bohmian mechanics as supplemented quantum theory, arguing that Bohmian 
positions have no physical reality.

Comments: 8 pages. Presented at the David Bohm Centennial Symposium, 
London, Octobre 2017 V2: several mineurs changes and additions
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics 
(physics.hist-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1803.06824  [quant-ph]
  (or arXiv:1803.06824v3  [quant-ph] for 
this version)



@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/8dd42147-b6ba-4716-9dfa-2a422964f79f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:


/> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural
tendency to think about the past and the future
differently. /


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the
future, so Price asks us to change the way we think in a
rather profound way. I can't imagine how he expects us to do
that.

John K Clark






As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not
remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this
universe, or part of the universe). But does it have to be that way?


Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then
we'd just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn
anything, we'd just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either
past of future, then we wouldn't exist.

Brent




I don't thinks so.

All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.


I don't see how that counters my point.

Brent



As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.

@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/a77abaf3-0bdc-493b-8984-047d4a06d6db%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c5af619-8090-8a04-e967-2a0b82684ecf%40verizon.net.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
 about the past and the future differently. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so 
>>> Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
>>> imagine how he expects us to do that.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
>> (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
>> of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
>>
>>
>> Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
>> just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd 
>> just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we 
>> wouldn't exist.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> I don't thinks so.
>
> All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.
>
>
> I don't see how that counters my point.
>
> Brent
>
>
> As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.
>
> @philipthrift
> -
>
>
"If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."



See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,

 https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 


Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) *are 
probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.

@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/91c3b9ad-9410-4978-b85e-2572cd79a072%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/30/2019 1:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark
wrote:


/> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural
tendency to think about the past and the future
differently. /


Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the
future, so Price asks us to change the way we think in a
rather profound way. I can't imagine how he expects us
to do that.

John K Clark






As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do
not remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are
(in this universe, or part of the universe). But does it
have to be that way?


Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past
then we'd just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd
never learn anything, we'd just exist.  If we didn't remember
anything, either past of future, then we wouldn't exist.

Brent




I don't thinks so.

All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not
deterministic.


I don't see how that counters my point.

Brent



As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.

@philipthrift
-



"If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."



See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,

https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 



Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) 
*are probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.


It doesn't matter whether the events are random or not.  If we remember 
the future we know what random values occurred.  They are only new to 
someone who didn't know them.   Knowing them doesn't make them any less 
random.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6378f2eb-b48b-d7a3-76fe-a1dbd9c991ee%40verizon.net.

Re: Are Real Numbers Really Real?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 4:30:28 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:36 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *> The Planck unit of length and time does not mean space or spacetime is 
>> discrete. All it means is this is the smallest scale one can localize a 
>> quantum bit of information. It does not mean that spacetime is somehow 
>> discrete.*
>>
>
> If discrete spacetime does not mean there is a smallest scale that a Qubit 
> of information can be localized then what does "discrete spacetime" mean?
>

> John K Clark
>

It is a form of quotient geometry. For 

1 →  G → H → K → 1

for G = U(1), H = U(N) and K = PSU(N) = SU(N)/Z_N this short exact sequence 
defines a discrete  gauge group. The projective Lie group is a Kleinian and 
for a manifold associated with SU(N), say AdS_5 = U(2, 2)/O(4,1) the 
quotient defines an underlying discretization. Of course to do this in 
greater generality we need to have a discrete system with polytopes that 
define cells. So G could be the Coxeter group for a polytope. Say for G the 
Coxeter group for the 4-dim icosian H the group O(3,2) ≈ AdS_4×O(3,1) then 
K would be this spacetime, with the Lorentz group, in a quotient with a lattice 
space.

LC

-- 
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/78f99b59-4a4b-4cdf-8614-d28abdbfdcbc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/30/2019 1:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 2:49:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 


 *> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think 
> about the past and the future differently. *


 Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so 
 Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't 
 imagine how he expects us to do that.

 John K Clark

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember 
>>> (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part 
>>> of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it does.  If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd 
>>> just swap words.  If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd 
>>> just exist.  If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we 
>>> wouldn't exist.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't thinks so.
>>
>> All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.
>>
>>
>> I don't see how that counters my point.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> As in the case of the interrogators of *Ypiaria* in his book.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>> -
>>
>>
> "If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist."
>
>
>
> See the Ypiaria chapter in Times Arrow,
>
>  https://books.google.com/books?id=B87QCwAAQBAJ=PA213=PA213 
> 
>
> Because the influences (backwards and forward updates of knowledge) *are 
> probabilistic*, we always will learn something new.
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether the events are random or not.  If we remember 
> the future we know what random values occurred.  They are only new to 
> someone who didn't know them.   Knowing them doesn't make them any less 
> random.
>
> Brent
>



I think Christopher Walken in *The Dead Zone* could get glimpses of the 
future, but they were stochastic. 

@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/0e8b9e1e-276d-44b0-b3bd-54fbc75eb226%40googlegroups.com.