Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:16:09AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Some constant might be intrinsically not computable. Normally, the physical
> laws should at some point take into account the probability of (self) halting,
> which would introduce a non computable constant in nature, although it would 
> be
> computable from the halting oracle. Mechanism prevents the physical reality
> from being entirely computable. I suspect Planck constant to be not 
> computable,
> because if we extract QM from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well
> related to the mechanist substitution level.

The Planck constant is, like the speed of light c, a unit conversion
factor. In natural units, it is 1 (or at least ℏ is set to 1).


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-01-13 Thread Brent Meeker



On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely no 
effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. But 
isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG


The screen pattern is determined by /*relative* phase angles for the 
different paths that reach the same point on the screen/. The relative 
angles only depend on different path lengths, so the overall phase angle 
is irrelevant.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-01-13 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:12:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 3:04:10 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2019, at 07:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> *How can you prepare a system in any superposition state if you don't 
> know the phase angles beforehand? You fail to distinguish measuring or 
> assuming the phase angles from calculating them. One doesn't need Born's 
> rule to calculate them. Maybe what Bruce meant is that you can never 
> calculate them, but you can prepare a system with any relative phase 
> angles. AG *
>
>
> In practice you prepare a "system" (e.g. a photon) in some particular 
> but unknown phase angle. Then you split the photon, or entangle it with 
> another photon, so that you have two with definite relative phase angles, 
> and with the same frequency,  then those two branches of the photon wave 
> function can interfere, i.e. the photon the interferes with itself as in 
> the Young's slits experiment.  So you only calculate the relative phase 
> shift of the two branches of the wf of the photon, which is enough to 
> define the interference pattern.
>
> Brent
>

 *Can a photon be split without violating conservation of energy? In any 
 event, I see my error on this issue of phase angles, and will describe it, 
 possibly to show I am not a complete idiot when it comes to QM. Stayed 
 tuned. AG*

>>>
>>> *Maybe I spoke too soon. I don't think I've resolved the issue of 
>>> arbitrary phase angles for components of a superposition of states. For 
>>> example, let's say the superposition consists of orthonormal eigenstates, 
>>> each multiplied by a probability amplitude. If each component is multiplied 
>>> by some arbitrary complex number representing a new phase angle, the 
>>> probability of *measuring* the eigenvalue corresponding to each component 
>>> doesn't change due to the orthonormality (taking the inner product of the 
>>> sum or wf, and then its norm squared). But what does apparently change is 
>>> the probability *density* distribution along the screen, say for double 
>>> slit experiment. But the eigenvalue probabilities which don't change with 
>>> an arbitrary change in phase angle, represent positions along the screen 
>>> via the inner product, DO seem to *shift* in value -- that is, the new 
>>> phases have the effect of changing the probability *density* -- and this 
>>> fact. if it is a fact, contradicts my earlier conclusion that changing the 
>>> relative phase angles does NOT change the calculated probability occurrence 
>>> for each eigenvalue. Is it understandable what my issue is here? TIA, AG*
>>>
>>
>> *IOW, if I change the phase angles, the interference changes and 
>> therefore the probability density changes, but this seems to contradict the 
>> fact that changing the phase angles has no effect on the probability of 
>> occurrences of the measured eigenvalues. AG *
>>
>>
>>
>> I have some difficulties to understand what you don’t understand. You 
>> seem to know the Born rule.
>>
>> Imagine some superposition, 1/(sqrt(2)(up + down) say. If you multiply 
>> this by any complex number e^phi, the Born rule will show that the 
>> probabilities does not change. But if, by using Stern Gerlach device, or 
>> David Albert’s nothing-box, which is just a phase shifter, place on the 
>> path of the "down-particle”, to get
>> 1/(sqrt(2)(up + e^phi down), the Born rule shows that this does change 
>> the probability of the outcome, in function of phi.
>>
>> Yes, it is hard to believe that a photon or an election “split” on two 
>> different path, and we can shift the phase of just one path, using that 
>> phase-shifter “nothing box”. Albert called it a “nothing box” because, for 
>> any particle going through it, it does not change any possible measurement 
>> result that you can do on the particles, unless it is put on the term of a 
>> vaster superposition, like in an interferometer.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> Thanks. Here's a thought experiment that might explain my issue/confusion. 
> Suppose we imagine a double slit experiment where the wf is a superposition 
> of states as I've previously described. Now imagine another thought 
> experiment where each component of the superposition is multiplied by an 
> arbitrary phase angle. Will the interference patterns of these two 
> experiment be the same or different? AG 
>

You'll notice that if we cast the experiments as a double slit experiments, 
the eigenvalues being measured are transverse momenta along the 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:51:24 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

 On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote:

 *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC,
> alpha.*
>

 No,  he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a
 value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know
 and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure
 number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how
 the diagrams should operate.


 The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are
 measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory.  The
 calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment.   A
 correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the
 occurence of c in the denominator).  The anamolous magnetic moment can be
 measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values
 of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic
 effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement
 is significant.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think that that is relevant? How?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> The physical charge is a bare mass corrected by a correction term e = e' +
> δe. Charge adjusts with energy in a renormalization group flow of
> adjustable parameters. At EW unification energy the fine structure constant
> is around 1/128. As E → 0 the RG flow reaches an attractor point that is
> the α = e^2/4πεħc. This is computed for the renormalized physical charge e
> from all radiative corrections possible.
>


I think everyone else is aware that the fine structure constant we are
talking about is the zero energy limit of the running coupling constant.
The infinite renormalisation terms are subtracted from the bare charge to
give the experimental result. Only the zero energy measured value has
physical significance at low energies.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM from 
arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the mechanist 
substitution level.

Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, 
but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.


Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Modal structuralism simplified

2019-01-13 Thread Philip Thrift


*Modal structuralism simplified*
https://seberry.org/modal-structuralism-simplified.pdf 

by Sharon Berry - https://seberry.org/ 

Abstract. *Since Benacerraf’s “What Numbers Could Not Be,” there has been a 
growing interest in mathematical structuralism. An influential form of 
mathematical structuralism, modal structuralism, uses logical possibility 
and second order logic to provide paraphrases of mathematical statements 
which don’t quantify over mathematical objects. These modal structuralist 
paraphrases are a useful tool for nominalists and realists alike. But their 
use of second order logic and quantification into the logical possibility 
operator raises concerns. In this paper, I show that the work of both these 
elements can be done by a single natural generalization of the logical 
possibility operator.*

*- pt*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: UDA and the origin of physics

2019-01-13 Thread Philip Thrift


On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:22:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2019, at 23:36, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:41:19 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:40, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 5:24:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 11:30, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:03:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:



 On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:54:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2019, at 19:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:36:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 15:13, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:06:08 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2019, at 22:27, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why - in  numerical reality (UD)  - can't there be vampires, 
>>> werewolves, that sort of things? They can certainly be "created" in 
>>> computer simulations of stories of them …
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, that is why we need to recover physics by a notion of 
>>> “bettable”. If you see a vampire, not explained by the notion of 
>>> observable, you can infer that either:
>>>
>>> Mechanism is false, or
>>> You are dreaming, or
>>> You belong to a “malevolent” simulation (à-la Bostrom, made by angry 
>>> descendent who want to fail us on reality).
>>>
>>> Fortunately, we don’t see vampires, and up to know, thanks to QM, we 
>>> see exactly what mechanism predicts.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Seth Lloyd of course says the universe is a quantum computer. 
>>
>>
>> That would entail Mechanism, but Mechanism entails that the physical 
>> universe is not a quantum computer, unless our substitution level is so 
>> low 
>> that we need to emulate the whole physical reality (not just the 
>> observable 
>> one) to get “my” consciousness. The term “universe” is also 
>> problematical 
>> to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But what if there are qualia in addition to (or combined with) quanta 
>> as the fundamental elements of nature. 
>>
>>
>> You can always speculate a non existing theory to “contradict” an 
>> existing theory. Why assumes something when we can explain it without 
>> assuming it. What if the thermodynamic of the car motion works only if 
>> invisible horses pull the car?
>>
>> Nature is also a imprecise term. All my scepticism on the existence 
>> of nature comes from the observation of nature. The physical science are 
>> not the metaphysical science, unless we postulate (weak) materialism, 
>> which 
>> is inconsistent with mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then the quantum computer - a purely quantum information processing 
>> (QuIP) machine - needs to be upgraded to a qualium(+quantum) 
>> experience(+information) processing (QuEP) machine.
>>
>>
>> With mechanism, the qualia are “easily” explained by the necessary 
>> variant of provability logic in G*. To add “material” to this would 
>> entail 
>> the existence of infinitely many p.zombie in arithmetic, and makes both 
>> consciousness and matter into irreductible mystery. What is the goal?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The universe (now a QuEP machine) could have conscious beings who 
>> make up stories about vampires and werewolves.
>>
>>
>> The arithmetical universe? Yes. Necessarily so with the 
>> computationalist hypothesis.
>>
>> Some of your remark shows that you have not studied my contribution. 
>> To avoid repetition, it might be useful to study it. Just criticising a 
>> conclusion because we have another theory is not that much interesting, 
>> especially when the “other theory” is not presented in a specific way 
>> (as 
>> your use of many links illustrates).
>>
>> All what I can say is that you are logically coherent: you believe in 
>> matter and you believe that mechanism is false. But the empirical facts 
>> go 
>> in the opposite direction. The empirical test of the existence of 
>> primary 
>> matter that I have given fails up to now.The world would be Newtonian, 
>> Mechanism would be judged reasonably refuted. Gödel + EPR-Everett saves 
>> Mechanism.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>  
>
> I don't think your theory refutes the existence of matter. (That would 
> be a surprise to materials scientists, fro example.)
>
>
>
> When I first made the theory public, the opposition did not come from 

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-01-13 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 3:04:10 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 07:24, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


 *How can you prepare a system in any superposition state if you don't 
 know the phase angles beforehand? You fail to distinguish measuring or 
 assuming the phase angles from calculating them. One doesn't need Born's 
 rule to calculate them. Maybe what Bruce meant is that you can never 
 calculate them, but you can prepare a system with any relative phase 
 angles. AG *


 In practice you prepare a "system" (e.g. a photon) in some particular 
 but unknown phase angle. Then you split the photon, or entangle it with 
 another photon, so that you have two with definite relative phase angles, 
 and with the same frequency,  then those two branches of the photon wave 
 function can interfere, i.e. the photon the interferes with itself as in 
 the Young's slits experiment.  So you only calculate the relative phase 
 shift of the two branches of the wf of the photon, which is enough to 
 define the interference pattern.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Can a photon be split without violating conservation of energy? In any 
>>> event, I see my error on this issue of phase angles, and will describe it, 
>>> possibly to show I am not a complete idiot when it comes to QM. Stayed 
>>> tuned. AG*
>>>
>>
>> *Maybe I spoke too soon. I don't think I've resolved the issue of 
>> arbitrary phase angles for components of a superposition of states. For 
>> example, let's say the superposition consists of orthonormal eigenstates, 
>> each multiplied by a probability amplitude. If each component is multiplied 
>> by some arbitrary complex number representing a new phase angle, the 
>> probability of *measuring* the eigenvalue corresponding to each component 
>> doesn't change due to the orthonormality (taking the inner product of the 
>> sum or wf, and then its norm squared). But what does apparently change is 
>> the probability *density* distribution along the screen, say for double 
>> slit experiment. But the eigenvalue probabilities which don't change with 
>> an arbitrary change in phase angle, represent positions along the screen 
>> via the inner product, DO seem to *shift* in value -- that is, the new 
>> phases have the effect of changing the probability *density* -- and this 
>> fact. if it is a fact, contradicts my earlier conclusion that changing the 
>> relative phase angles does NOT change the calculated probability occurrence 
>> for each eigenvalue. Is it understandable what my issue is here? TIA, AG*
>>
>
> *IOW, if I change the phase angles, the interference changes and therefore 
> the probability density changes, but this seems to contradict the fact that 
> changing the phase angles has no effect on the probability of occurrences 
> of the measured eigenvalues. AG *
>
>
>
> I have some difficulties to understand what you don’t understand. You seem 
> to know the Born rule.
>
> Imagine some superposition, 1/(sqrt(2)(up + down) say. If you multiply 
> this by any complex number e^phi, the Born rule will show that the 
> probabilities does not change. But if, by using Stern Gerlach device, or 
> David Albert’s nothing-box, which is just a phase shifter, place on the 
> path of the "down-particle”, to get
> 1/(sqrt(2)(up + e^phi down), the Born rule shows that this does change the 
> probability of the outcome, in function of phi.
>
> Yes, it is hard to believe that a photon or an election “split” on two 
> different path, and we can shift the phase of just one path, using that 
> phase-shifter “nothing box”. Albert called it a “nothing box” because, for 
> any particle going through it, it does not change any possible measurement 
> result that you can do on the particles, unless it is put on the term of a 
> vaster superposition, like in an interferometer.
>
> Bruno
>

Thanks. Here's a thought experiment that might explain my issue/confusion. 
Suppose we imagine a double slit experiment where the wf is a superposition 
of states as I've previously described. Now imagine another thought 
experiment where each component of the superposition is multiplied by an 
arbitrary phase angle. Will the interference patterns of these two 
experiment be the same or different? 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this 

Re: Solomonoff induction and mechanism

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 12 Jan 2019, at 03:14, Mason Green  wrote:
> 
> Solomonoff’s method of induction seems like a good fit for a mechanist view 
> of things. For instance, it could be used to assign a relative probability to 
> the universe being generated by a universal dovetailer: 2^(-K) * m, where K 
> is the Kolmogorov complexity of the universal dovetailer and m is the measure 
> the dovetailer assigns to universes like ours.
> 
> This formula implies that a (more complex) non-universal dovetailer might be 
> preferable _if_ it assigned a much higher measure to universes like ours.

That works for the individual mind, and with some luck for the first person 
plural physics, but you have to drive them from the universal dovetailing (if 
not you will reintroduce some identity thesis hardly compatible with 
computationalism (even with oracles).




> Such a dovetailer might, for instance, output only (or mostly) habitable 
> worlds, instead of outputting mostly uninhabitable worlds as the standard UD 
> does, and the higher resulting measure would offset the increased Kolmogorov 
> complexity.

That leads to technical difficulties, although a subpart of this might explains 
the “thermodynamical part of physics”, relying on the laws of big numbers. But 
to make all this works, I am not sure it possible with taking into account the 
“mental” abilities of the universal-observers.




> 
> If we live in a highly “atypical” universe, that might also affect how we 
> should do Solomonoff induction. For instance if we knew that we lived in a 
> universe with much less suffering than an “average” inhabited universe,

?

What do you mean by “suffering” in an inhabited universe?




> that could imply we were generated by a dovetailer that doesn’t like 
> suffering. If the opposite is true and we live in a “mean world”, that means 
> we might be generated by a sadistic dovetailer, etc.


If such a malevolent or benevolent program exists, it has to be explained by 
the sum on all universal dovetailing, that any single universal dovetailer 
produces. The initial one does not matter, and I use the sigma_1 arithmetic 
sentences (equivalent to their own provability at the G* level) to start with 
(or sometimes the combinators, which are more handy but much less known).

Bruno







> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: UDA and the origin of physics

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 12 Jan 2019, at 02:25, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 2:36 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> Of course there are math professors (Dr. Z at Rutgers) who teach on the 
>>> evils of Platonism. And "Truth" is like God, as Rorty said.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That is a good summary of Plato. Hirsschberger sum up Plato by saying that 
>> the God of Plato is Truth. Not the one we make public, but the one we search.
>> 
>> Now, all my life I have got the feeling that Plato is dismissed, and badly 
>> seen, notably in opposition to Aristotle. But Aristotle did not understood 
>> Plato, except in a curious passage of the “metaphysics” where he seems to 
>> suddenly got the point, and seems to come back to Plato without saying (but 
>> that is an optimistic reading of Aristotle’s metaphysics, To be sure I found 
>> some scholars who saw that too, like Gerson.
>> 
>> That "truth is God" makes sense for a computationalist, because “truth” when 
>> encompassing the description of a machine at its correct substitution level, 
>> is no more definable by that machine. Yes, Truth, and semantics, is very 
>> much like the platonician notion of God. You force me to agree with Rorty on 
>> this!
>> 
> 
> At the same time Rorty said,"Truth is like God" he was a "strict atheist”. 

I thought on this. Plato defines God by “Ultimate Truth” with a meliorative 
respectful sense of Truth.

Maybe Rorty said this to dismiss Truth, as much as the “God” of the “naive 
current authoritarian” religion.
But Rorty take some “nature” for granted, and this is the ciment of the current 
Aristotelian quasi imposed paradigm, which is contradicted by the close 
observation of nature, and by the theoretical consequences of Mechanism.




> He was also a pragmatist, meaning he thought the measure of truth was solely 
> whether it worked. 

That is, ITSM, rather more instrumentalism and relativism, than pragmatism, but 
may be that is close.

Bruno


> So I'd gather that Rorty didn't think that "truth" was very useful idea; 
> which is confirmed by him being called an "ironist" by his friends.
> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: UDA and the origin of physics

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Jan 2019, at 23:36, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 8:41:19 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:40, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 5:24:20 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 11:30, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 4:03:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:50, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:54:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 10 Jan 2019, at 19:16, Philip Thrift > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:36:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Jan 2019, at 15:13, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:06:08 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Jan 2019, at 22:27, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why - in  numerical reality (UD)  - can't there be vampires, 
>>> werewolves, that sort of things? They can certainly be "created" in 
>>> computer simulations of stories of them …
>> 
>> Exactly, that is why we need to recover physics by a notion of 
>> “bettable”. If you see a vampire, not explained by the notion of 
>> observable, you can infer that either:
>> 
>> Mechanism is false, or
>> You are dreaming, or
>> You belong to a “malevolent” simulation (à-la Bostrom, made by angry 
>> descendent who want to fail us on reality).
>> 
>> Fortunately, we don’t see vampires, and up to know, thanks to QM, we see 
>> exactly what mechanism predicts.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Seth Lloyd of course says the universe is a quantum computer.
> 
> That would entail Mechanism, but Mechanism entails that the physical 
> universe is not a quantum computer, unless our substitution level is so 
> low that we need to emulate the whole physical reality (not just the 
> observable one) to get “my” consciousness. The term “universe” is also 
> problematical to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> But what if there are qualia in addition to (or combined with) quanta as 
>> the fundamental elements of nature.
> 
> You can always speculate a non existing theory to “contradict” an 
> existing theory. Why assumes something when we can explain it without 
> assuming it. What if the thermodynamic of the car motion works only if 
> invisible horses pull the car?
> 
> Nature is also a imprecise term. All my scepticism on the existence of 
> nature comes from the observation of nature. The physical science are not 
> the metaphysical science, unless we postulate (weak) materialism, which 
> is inconsistent with mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Then the quantum computer - a purely quantum information processing 
>> (QuIP) machine - needs to be upgraded to a qualium(+quantum) 
>> experience(+information) processing (QuEP) machine.
> 
> With mechanism, the qualia are “easily” explained by the necessary 
> variant of provability logic in G*. To add “material” to this would 
> entail the existence of infinitely many p.zombie in arithmetic, and makes 
> both consciousness and matter into irreductible mystery. What is the goal?
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The universe (now a QuEP machine) could have conscious beings who make 
>> up stories about vampires and werewolves.
> 
> The arithmetical universe? Yes. Necessarily so with the computationalist 
> hypothesis.
> 
> Some of your remark shows that you have not studied my contribution. To 
> avoid repetition, it might be useful to study it. Just criticising a 
> conclusion because we have another theory is not that much interesting, 
> especially when the “other theory” is not presented in a specific way (as 
> your use of many links illustrates).
> 
> All what I can say is that you are logically coherent: you believe in 
> matter and you believe that mechanism is false. But the empirical facts 
> go in the opposite direction. The empirical test of the existence of 
> primary matter that I have given fails up to now.The world would be 
> Newtonian, Mechanism would be judged reasonably refuted. Gödel + 
> EPR-Everett saves Mechanism.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> I don't think your theory refutes the existence of matter. (That would be 
> a surprise to materials scientists, fro example.)
 
 
 When I first made the theory public, the opposition did not come from 
 physicists, nor mathematicians, but from materialist philosophers. But I 
 do not defend any personal idea: it is not my theory, but the theory of 
 any universal machine “rich enough” to know (in the Theaetetus sense) that 

Re: UDA and the origin of physics

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Jan 2019, at 21:04, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Anyway, the question is if it is true or false. In mathematics, mechanism 
>> restricts realism only to finite mathematics, or arithmetic. This is 
>> basically the idea that 2+2=4, and that this is true independently of me.
> 
> But "true"and "exist" are different things.

Yes. True in a model, means satisfied in that model. Now “Ex(x = k)” is true in 
a model, if k exists in the model.

For exemple “Ex(x = s(s(0))” is true in all models of arithmetic, and is true 
in particular in the standard model of arithmetic. The structure/model (N, 0, 
+, x) satisfies “Ex(x = s(s(0))”.





> Mathematics uses "exist" to mean "satisfies some predicate”

Satisfies some formula (build with some predicate or legality). Yes, OK.




> .  But we don't think Waston existed because he satisfied "the companion of 
> Homes”.


It exists in the model satisfying the “axioms” of the “theory”, which we take 
as granted when, for entertaining purpose, we want do some awake dreaming, like 
TV and Novels make possible.

Is our reality a model of that theory? Of course we know that this is fewly 
possible. But we do assume that the reality/model in which Watson and Holmes do 
exist is enough similar to us so that we can be sure that Holmes will not loss 
his pipe all along the history we follow.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 13 Jan 2019, at 07:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 4:13:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 8:41:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:40:13 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 1:54 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> How can you prepare a system in any superposition state if you don't know 
>> the phase angles beforehand? You fail to distinguish measuring or assuming 
>> the phase angles from calculating them. One doesn't need Born's rule to 
>> calculate them. Maybe what Bruce meant is that you can never calculate them, 
>> but you can prepare a system with any relative phase angles. AG
> 
> In practice you prepare a "system" (e.g. a photon) in some particular but 
> unknown phase angle. Then you split the photon, or entangle it with another 
> photon, so that you have two with definite relative phase angles, and with 
> the same frequency,  then those two branches of the photon wave function can 
> interfere, i.e. the photon the interferes with itself as in the Young's slits 
> experiment.  So you only calculate the relative phase shift of the two 
> branches of the wf of the photon, which is enough to define the interference 
> pattern.
> 
> Brent
> 
> Can a photon be split without violating conservation of energy? In any event, 
> I see my error on this issue of phase angles, and will describe it, possibly 
> to show I am not a complete idiot when it comes to QM. Stayed tuned. AG
> 
> Maybe I spoke too soon. I don't think I've resolved the issue of arbitrary 
> phase angles for components of a superposition of states. For example, let's 
> say the superposition consists of orthonormal eigenstates, each multiplied by 
> a probability amplitude. If each component is multiplied by some arbitrary 
> complex number representing a new phase angle, the probability of *measuring* 
> the eigenvalue corresponding to each component doesn't change due to the 
> orthonormality (taking the inner product of the sum or wf, and then its norm 
> squared). But what does apparently change is the probability *density* 
> distribution along the screen, say for double slit experiment. But the 
> eigenvalue probabilities which don't change with an arbitrary change in phase 
> angle, represent positions along the screen via the inner product, DO seem to 
> *shift* in value -- that is, the new phases have the effect of changing the 
> probability *density* -- and this fact. if it is a fact, contradicts my 
> earlier conclusion that changing the relative phase angles does NOT change 
> the calculated probability occurrence for each eigenvalue. Is it 
> understandable what my issue is here? TIA, AG
> 
> IOW, if I change the phase angles, the interference changes and therefore the 
> probability density changes, but this seems to contradict the fact that 
> changing the phase angles has no effect on the probability of occurrences of 
> the measured eigenvalues. AG 


I have some difficulties to understand what you don’t understand. You seem to 
know the Born rule.

Imagine some superposition, 1/(sqrt(2)(up + down) say. If you multiply this by 
any complex number e^phi, the Born rule will show that the probabilities does 
not change. But if, by using Stern Gerlach device, or David Albert’s 
nothing-box, which is just a phase shifter, place on the path of the 
"down-particle”, to get
1/(sqrt(2)(up + e^phi down), the Born rule shows that this does change the 
probability of the outcome, in function of phi.

Yes, it is hard to believe that a photon or an election “split” on two 
different path, and we can shift the phase of just one path, using that 
phase-shifter “nothing box”. Albert called it a “nothing box” because, for any 
particle going through it, it does not change any possible measurement result 
that you can do on the particles, unless it is put on the term of a vaster 
superposition, like in an interferometer.

Bruno





> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM 
>> from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the 
>> mechanist substitution level.
> 
> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper units.

Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly non-computable, 
but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 13 Jan 2019, at 00:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > 
 wrote:
 
 > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
 
 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons 
 repulsion, then you'd better get a number very close to the Fine Structure 
 Constant. If you don't then Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.
 
 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
 the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to 
 many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
 because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
 they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives 
 scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other 
 situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that involve 
 the Electromagnetic Force.
>>> 
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory 
>>> of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values 
>>> the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the 
>>> vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their 
>>> values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the 
>>> electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field 
>>> theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked 
>>> them and e to g.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>> 
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
>> propagators derived from them.
> 
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as connecting 
> the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his diagrams 
> provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that would sum to 
> the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you then need to 
> specify how many.
> 
>> 
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
> 
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the same 
> problem: How many histories?
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 
>>  
>> 
>> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
>> 
>> - pt
> 
> 
> As many histories/diagrams as you need. There are supercomputers now.
> 
> 
> But what do physicists really think is closer to actual reality?  Something 
> closer to Histories/Diagrams or to a Hilbert Space. Do some really think that 
> in fact  material reality is actually an infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space?
> 
> That is so freaking bizarre, isn't it, when you think about it.

Reality is freaking bizarre, but we get used to it. When I learned that Earth 
was round, and the the movement of the sun was due to the spinning of the 
Earth, I found that freaking bizarre. Then, when a man walked on the moon, I 
was already unable to not find the idea very natural, almost obvious.

With mechanism, the physical reality is not an Hilbert space, but it (should) 
looks like that (or close) when seen from the set-referentially (in the 
arithmetical sense) correct internal views of arithmetic or any universal 
system.

Bruno


> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 12 Jan 2019, at 23:17, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > 
 wrote:
 
 > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
 > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
 
 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
 number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then 
 Feynman Diagrams aren't any good.
 
 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
 the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to 
 many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams 
 because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out 
 they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives 
 scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other 
 situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that involve 
 the Electromagnetic Force.
>>> 
>>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory 
>>> of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values 
>>> the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the 
>>> vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their 
>>> values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the 
>>> electron, hbar and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field 
>>> theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked 
>>> them and e to g.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>> 
>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
>> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
>> propagators derived from them.
> 
> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as connecting 
> the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his diagrams 
> provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that would sum to 
> the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you then need to 
> specify how many.
> 
>> 
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
> 
> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the same 
> problem: How many histories?

The aleph_1 one on which your consciousness can differentiate, but in practice 
we can use only the aleph_0 local pieces of histories (which are indexical sets 
of past/memories+future/accessible-worlds).

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 
>>  
>> 
>> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
>> 
>> - pt
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> 

Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 12 Jan 2019, at 11:51, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
>>> > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams
>>> 
>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
>>> number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then Feynman 
>>> Diagrams aren't any good.
>>> 
>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what 
>>> the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew 
>>> what that number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 
>>> 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams 
>>> worked. And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that situation, 
>>> and that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in 
>>> other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
>>> involve the Electromagnetic Force.
>> 
>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's completely 
>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already 
>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and 
>> there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed that his theory of 
>> EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values the 
>> speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the speed of light is a 
>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. 
>>  So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their values to be 
>> defined.  In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, hbar 
>> and c are already defined constants.  So quantum field theory (for which 
>> Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked them and e to g.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) then 
>> Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
> 
> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to 
> approximate the propagator of QFT.  
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and 
> propagators derived from them.
> 
> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived from 
> them.
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 

That is a very good paper, I think it is the right approach, and probably the 
closer to what Digital Mechanism is going too. Just that the histories are not 
fundamental with mechanism, as they are the sigma_1 sentences with formal truth 
and/or consistency additions ([]p & p, []p & <>t, []p & <>t & p).

Bruno

> 
> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus.
> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

2019-01-13 Thread Philip Thrift


On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 7:09:29 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  
 wrote:

 * > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c.  Those three values are 
> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams*
>

 Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some 
 physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons 
 being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain 
 enough energy to prevent the electrons repulsion, then you'd better get a 
 number very close to the Fine Structure Constant. If you don't then 
 Feynman 
 Diagrams aren't any good. 

 They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know 
 what the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that 
 number was to many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 
 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams 
 worked. And it turned out they worked spectacularly well in that 
 situation, 
 and that gives scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams 
 in 
 other situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that 
 involve the Electromagnetic Force.


 There's always an interplay between theory and experiment.  It's 
 completely analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There 
 were already experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of 
 the vacuum and there were values for the speed of light.  Maxwell showed 
 that his theory of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and 
 permeability values the speed of the waves matched that of light.  Now the 
 speed of light is a defined constant and so are the permittivity and 
 permeability of the vacuum.  So the connecting of the three values by a 
 theory allows their values to be defined.  In the case of the anomalous 
 magnetic moment of the electron, hbar and c are already defined constants. 
  
 So quantum field theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a 
 calculational tool) linked them and e to g.

 Brent


>>>
>>>
>>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) 
>>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms 
>>> to approximate the propagator of QFT.  
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, 
>> and propagators derived from them.
>>
>>
>> How many diagrams?  The propagator has a clear interpretation as 
>> connecting the field at x with the field at y.  Feynman showed that his 
>> diagrams provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that 
>> would sum to the propagator.  If you take the diagrams as fundamental you 
>> then need to specify how many.
>>
>>
>> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived 
>> from them.
>>
>>
>> Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces.  So you have the 
>> same problem: How many histories?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>  
> The number of diagrams grows exponentially. As I recall the QED industry 
> is up to 12 orders of radiative corrections and renormalization orders. The 
> number of diagrams to evaluate and sum is in the millions if not billions. 
> This stuff is done on supercomputers these days. People do not really 
> evaluate Feynman diagrams, they write computer programs.
>
> LC
>


Supercomputers are the future of theoretical physics it seems, like the one 
at LSU, SuperMike-II.

http://www.hpc.lsu.edu/docs/guides.php?system=SuperMike2

*SuperMike-II is a 146 TFlops Peak Performance 440 compute node cluster 
running the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 operating system. Each node contains 
two 8-Core Sandy Bridge Xeon 64-bit processors operating at a core 
frequency of 2.6 GHz. Fifty of the compute nodes also have two NVIDIA M2090 
GPUs that provide an additional 66 Tflops total Peak performance.*

use in LQG:
https://www.lsu.edu/mediacenter/news/2018/12/20physastro_singh_prl.php 


- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at