Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 9:12:02 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
>> particles and covariant.
>>
>
> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not 
> the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for 
> this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what 
> did 
> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>
>
> Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's 
> principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of 
> spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown 
> by 
> LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material 
> events couldn't do that.
>
> Brent
>

 *Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle 
 for gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? *


 GR is a covariant theory.  So it's quanta, gravitons, are covariant.

>>>
>>> *I could be mistaken, but I see gravitons as being part of a distinct 
>>> theory of gravity, which might give the same results as GR. In GR, the 
>>> paths are determined by geometry in the absence of forces, not by mediating 
>>> particles. AG *
>>>
>>
>> GR, as a theory, implies the existence of gravity waves. Wave, when 
>> quantised, give particles: these are the gravitons of the theory. Exchange 
>> of such gravitons does not necessarily have anything to do with the forces 
>> in the theory, or the formation of geodesics.
>>
>> Bruce 
>>
>
> *Very clarifying. Then, since gravitational waves have been detected, it 
> must be that gravitons exist, but too low in energy to be detected. AG *
>


That is news for sure!

- 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 9:12:02 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
> particles and covariant.
>

 *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not 
 the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for 
 this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
 Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *


 Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's 
 principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of 
 spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown by 
 LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material 
 events couldn't do that.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle for 
>>> gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? *
>>>
>>>
>>> GR is a covariant theory.  So it's quanta, gravitons, are covariant.
>>>
>>
>> *I could be mistaken, but I see gravitons as being part of a distinct 
>> theory of gravity, which might give the same results as GR. In GR, the 
>> paths are determined by geometry in the absence of forces, not by mediating 
>> particles. AG *
>>
>
> GR, as a theory, implies the existence of gravity waves. Wave, when 
> quantised, give particles: these are the gravitons of the theory. Exchange 
> of such gravitons does not necessarily have anything to do with the forces 
> in the theory, or the formation of geodesics.
>
> Bruce 
>

*Very clarifying. Then, since gravitational waves have been detected, it 
must be that gravitons exist, but too low in energy to be detected. AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 3:08 PM  wrote:

> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic
 particles and covariant.

>>>
>>> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not
>>> the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for
>>> this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did
>>> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's
>>> principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of
>>> spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown by
>>> LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material
>>> events couldn't do that.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle for
>> gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? *
>>
>>
>> GR is a covariant theory.  So it's quanta, gravitons, are covariant.
>>
>
> *I could be mistaken, but I see gravitons as being part of a distinct
> theory of gravity, which might give the same results as GR. In GR, the
> paths are determined by geometry in the absence of forces, not by mediating
> particles. AG *
>

GR, as a theory, implies the existence of gravity waves. Wave, when
quantised, give particles: these are the gravitons of the theory. Exchange
of such gravitons does not necessarily have anything to do with the forces
in the theory, or the formation of geodesics.

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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 8:13:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
>>> particles and covariant.
>>>
>>
>> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not the 
>> mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for this 
>> thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
>> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>>
>>
>> Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's 
>> principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of 
>> spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown by 
>> LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material 
>> events couldn't do that.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle for 
> gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? *
>
>
> GR is a covariant theory.  So it's quanta, gravitons, are covariant.
>

*I could be mistaken, but I see gravitons as being part of a distinct 
theory of gravity, which might give the same results as GR. In GR, the 
paths are determined by geometry in the absence of forces, not by mediating 
particles. AG *

>
> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not the 
> mediating particles, that must be covariant.  Do we have equations of 
> motions for strong and weak forces, which are covariant? AG*
>
>
> Forces are mediated by exchange of bosons.  Those bosons appear in the 
> Standard Model Lagrangian, from which equations of motion can be derived.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model
>
> 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/22/2019 6:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:


Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already
relativistic particles and covariant.


*I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force,
not the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related
topic for this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's
principle? That is, what did Einstein implicitly (or explicitly)
deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *


Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's
principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric
of spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy,
as shown by LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation
between material events couldn't do that.

Brent


*Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle 
for gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? *


GR is a covariant theory.  So it's quanta, gravitons, are covariant.

*I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not 
the mediating particles, that must be covariant.  Do we have equations 
of motions for strong and weak forces, which are covariant? AG*


Forces are mediated by exchange of bosons.  Those bosons appear in the 
Standard Model Lagrangian, from which equations of motion can be derived.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model

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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 4:55:41 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
>> particles and covariant.
>>
>
> *I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not the 
> mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for this 
> thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
> Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's principle? TIA, AG *
>
>
> Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's 
> principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of 
> spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown by 
> LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material 
> events couldn't do that.
>
> Brent
>

*Were you inferring covariance simply because the mediating particle for 
gravity, the graviton, travels at the SoL? I thought it's the equations of 
motion for the particular force, not the mediating particles, that must be 
covariant.  Do we have equations of motions for strong and weak forces, 
which are covariant? AG*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/22/2019 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic
particles and covariant.


*I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not 
the mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic 
for this thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, 
what did Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's 
principle? TIA, AG *


Einstein thought he would develop a theory that satisfied Mach's 
principle, but as it turned out GR doesn't. For example the metric of 
spacetime is a dynamic field and transmit momentum and energy, as shown 
by LIGO.  Mach's idea of spacetime as purely a relation between material 
events couldn't do that.


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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 1:34:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/2019 4:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/21/2019 5:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:50:51 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 2/20/2019 1:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 2/20/2019 8:42 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:09:10 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>>
>> >* Newton "explained" *
>>
>>
>> Why did you put explained in quotation marks? If you can predict what 
>> something is going to do then you've explained it, the better the 
>> prediction the better the explanation. I don't know what else the word 
>> could possibly mean. And in science no explanation is perfect, but some 
>> are 
>> less wrong than others.
>>
>
> *QM better illustrates the justification for quotes. Many 
> interpretations that make the same predictions. AG *
>
>>
>> *> why a body at "rest" can start moving, via the application of 
>>> "force"*
>>
>>
>> And Einstein explained that a body moving in a geodesic through 4D 
>> spacetime will take a path that is not a geodesic if a force is applied. 
>> The Earth is moving in a straight line (aka a geodesic) through curved 
>> spacetime; the reason Earth's orbit looks elliptical to us is due to map 
>> distortion, the same reason that in a flat map of the curved surface of 
>> the 
>> Earth Greenland looks larger than South America and is almost as large 
>> as 
>> Africa. Except that it's even worse, in one we're projecting the 2 D 
>> curved surface of the Earth into the flat 2D surface of the map, but 
>> with 
>> Einstein we're projecting a curved 4D volume into a flat 3D volume. 
>>
>> *> What does "rest" mean in GR *
>>
>>
>> In General Relativity moving in a geodesic is as close as you can 
>> get to the traditional idea of rest, but as long as time passes you're 
>> going to be moving through 4D spacetime.
>>
>
>
> *If you're at spatial rest in spacetime in the presence of a 
> gravitational source, how does GR explain the subsequent spatial motion? 
> AG 
> *
>
>
> When you were at "spatial rest" you had a force applied to you.  
> Removing it allowed you to follow a geodesics path through 
> spacetimealso known as "falling".
>
> Brent
>
>

 *So it seems that GR doesn't explain motion; rather, it assumes motion 
 is a natural state of things. AG *


 So called "standing still" is just motion in the time direction 
 only...in Newtonian and special relativity as well. Just as there is no 
 absolute motion, there's no absolution motionless either...it's called 
 "relativity" for a reason.

 Brent

>>>
>>>
>>> *Other than gravity, the remaining known forces are moderated, or shall 
>>> we say "caused by" particles. Doesn't GR remain an exception; that is, 
>>> wouldn't it preclude the existence of a graviton? TIA, AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Gravitons, the weak-field limit quanta of the gravitational field, 
>>> aren't precluded.  They are implicit in string-theory; which is why string 
>>> theory is a candidate for the quantum theory of gravity.  The problem is 
>>> there's no mathematically consistent way to extend the graviton, weak 
>>> field, picture to the strong field limit and predict what happens in a 
>>> black hole where GR predicts a singularity.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *ISTM that gravitons would be inconsistent with GR, which derives 
>> gravitating motion from geometry, not mediating particles.  AG*
>>
>>
>> It is conceptually inconsistent, just as GR is conceptually inconsistent 
>> with Newtonian gravity.  But that doesn't mean the theories make detectably 
>> different predictions in the domain where we can test them.  Notice how 
>> difficult it was to test GR vs Newton.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Even if gravitons are detected, and they account for "force" consistent 
> with the other three forces, wouldn't there remain the task of changing the 
> form of gravity to make it covariant? AG*
>
>
> Gravitons, as quanta of the metric field, are already relativistic 
> particles and covariant.
>

*I thought it's the equations of motion for the particular force, not the 
mediating particles, that must be covariant. On a related topic for this 
thread, where does GR depart from Mach's principle? That is, what did 
Einstein implicitly (or explicitly) deny about Mach's 

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-22 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/22/2019 11:39 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but 
he seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some 
ways that is what Born said.


The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space 
with vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as 
sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an observable O with eigenvectors o_i the 
expectation values for that observable is


 sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.

So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability 
for the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to 
understand, but the problem is there is no general theorem and proof 
that the eigenvalues of an operator or observable are diagonal in the 
probabilities. In fact this has some subtle issues with degeneracies.


Doesn't Gleason's theorem show that there is no other consistent way to 
assign probabilities to subspaces of a Hilbert space?


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: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 20 Feb 2019, at 00:00, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2019 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.
>>> Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
>>> know...so why would it disbelieve us.
>> Tha machine becomes inconsistent if it assumes its consistency (cf Rogers’s 
>> sentence). The machine can assume a sort of consistency of its past belief, 
>> like PA can add the axioms that PA is consistent, (or that PA is 
>> inconsistent) without losing its consistency, but in that case it becomes a 
>> new machine, with a similar theology in shape, but a different 
>> content/meaning for the box. She has changed her own code (as we do every 
>> second instinctively).
> 
> I think this is misleading.  When you say it becomes inconsistent if it 
> assumes it's consistency, you mean that if it uses its consistency as an 
> axiom it can lead to proving "false".   But in fact everyone assumes that 
> their beliefs are consistent, they just don't take it as an axiom and neither 
> do they take it as an axiom that they are inconsistent.  If I'm creating an 
> AI I see no reason to have it make any assumption or inference about it's 
> consistency in the sense of Goedel.  It need only be consistent in the sense 
> of avoiding ex quod libet.

Yes. That is what I was explaining.

In fact the machine, PA say, can guess or infer abductively or inductively its 
own consistency, and add it as a new axiom leading to the “new” machine PA + 
con PA (which is different than PA, and indeed much more powerful in the range 
of its theorem, and this makes the length of many proof shorter (cf the 
speeding role of consciousness). If the machine is not cautious, it can lead to 
the theory PA’ = PA + con PA’ (that exists by the diagonal lemma or Kleene’s 
second recursion theorem), and that leads to an inconsistent theory. So there 
is an important nuance between “guessing or inferring one’s consistency, and 
assuming it as part of our belief, without any distinguishing label or 
interrogation mark. It is the same as the difference with the existence of the 
universe or just infinity. PA assumes (or derive from its assumption/axioms) 
the existence of each numbers, but not of the entirety or infinity of the 
natural numbers. Mechanism infer/guess the existence of a physical universe 
(and a doctor, physical computers), but not as part of the mechanist 
assumption, which would make that universe primitive. That again is a nuance 
brought by incompleteness, and plays an important rôle. If a machine 
asserts/assumes its own consistency, it can prove it (in one line like “see the 
assumption”), and get inconsistent by incompleteness. It becomes equivalent to 
a Rogerian sentences, that is, a sentence K such that PA proves (K <-> ~[]~K), 
but then PA proves [](K <-> ~[]~K) <-> [](K <-> f), like PA proves (with [] = 
beweisbar)

 [](K <-> []K) <-> [](K <-> t).   (Löbian sentence)
 [](K <-> ~[]K) <-> [](K <-> <>t)  (Gödelianl sentence)
 [](K <-> []~K) <-> [](K <-> []f). (Jeroslowian sentence)

The moral is that in psychology and theology, many truth go without saying and 
*only* without saying. They are called the Protagorean virtue in my longer 
exposition. 

You need only to recall that I use “understands”,” asserts", “proves", 
“believes” in a deductive sense, as opposed to semantic inductive inference, 
related to the fact that a machine has a body, or code, and can infer truth by 
experience (and not a reasoning, conscious or not conscious). That is reflected 
also in the difference between []p and []p & p, or []p & <>t, etc.

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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-02-22 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/21/2019 10:47 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 2/21/2019 4:05 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 1:35:17 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 2/21/2019 5:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:50:51 PM UTC-7, Brent
wrote:



On 2/20/2019 1:23 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:16:31 PM UTC-7,
Brent wrote:



On 2/20/2019 8:42 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 7:09:10 AM
UTC-7, John Clark wrote:


>/Newton "explained" /


Why did you put explained in quotation marks?
If you can predict what something is going to
do then you've explained it, the better the
prediction the better the explanation. I don't
know what else the word could possibly mean.
And in science no explanation is perfect, but
some are less wrong than others.


*QM better illustrates the justification for
quotes. Many interpretations that make the same
predictions. AG *


/> why a body at "rest" can start moving,
via the application of "force"/


And Einstein explained that a body moving in a
geodesic through 4D spacetime will take a path
that is not a geodesic if a force is applied.
The Earth is moving in a straight line (aka a
geodesic) through curved spacetime; the reason
Earth's orbit looks elliptical to us is due to
map distortion, the same reason that in a flat
map of the curved surface of the Earth
Greenland looks larger than South America and
is almost as large as Africa. Except that it's
even worse, in one we're projecting the 2 D
curved surface of the Earth into the flat 2D
surface of the map, but with Einstein we're
projecting a curved 4D volume into a flat 3D
volume.

/> What does "rest" mean in GR /


In General Relativity moving in a geodesic is
as close as you can get to the traditional
idea of rest, but as long as time passes
you're going to be moving through 4D spacetime.


*If you're at spatial rest in spacetime in the
presence of a gravitational source, how does GR
explain the subsequent spatial motion? AG
*


When you were at "spatial rest" you had a force
applied to you. Removing it allowed you to follow a
geodesics path through spacetimealso known as
"falling".

Brent


*So it seems that GR doesn't explain motion; rather, it
assumes motion is a natural state of things. AG
*


So called "standing still" is just motion in the time
direction only...in Newtonian and special relativity as
well. Just as there is no absolute motion, there's no
absolution motionless either...it's called "relativity"
for a reason.

Brent


*Other than gravity, the remaining known forces are
moderated, or shall we say "caused by" particles. Doesn't GR
remain an exception; that is, wouldn't it preclude the
existence of a graviton? TIA, AG
*


Gravitons, the weak-field limit quanta of the gravitational
field, aren't precluded.  They are implicit in string-theory;
which is why string theory is a candidate for the quantum
theory of gravity.  The problem is there's no mathematically
consistent way to extend the graviton, weak field, picture to
the strong field limit and predict what happens in a black
hole where GR predicts a singularity.

Brent


*ISTM that gravitons would be inconsistent with GR, which derives
gravitating motion from geometry, not mediating particles.  AG*


It is conceptually inconsistent, just as GR is conceptually
inconsistent with Newtonian gravity.  But that doesn't mean the
theories make detectably different predictions in the domain where
we can test them.  Notice how difficult it was to test GR vs Newton.

Brent


*Even if gravitons are detected, and they account for "force" 
consistent with the other three forces, wouldn't there remain the task 
of changing the form 

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

2019-02-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell
This sounds almost tautological. I have not read Masanes' paper, but he 
seems to be saying the Born rule is a matter of pure logic. In some ways 
that is what Born said.

The Born rule is not hard to understand. If you have a state space with 
vectors |u_i> then a quantum state can be written as sum_ic_i|u_i>. For an 
observable O with eigenvectors o_i the expectation values for that 
observable is

 sum_{ij} = sum_{ij} = sum_ip_io_i.

So the expectations of each eigenvalue is multiple of the probability for 
the system to be found in that state. It is not hard to understand, but the 
problem is there is no general theorem and proof that the eigenvalues of an 
operator or observable are diagonal in the probabilities. In fact this has 
some subtle issues with degeneracies.

LC

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:40:32 PM UTC-6, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Two fascinating (and very different) approaches are presented to derive 
> Quantim Mechanics main practical tool (e.g. Born's rule). Wonder what some 
> of the physicists on here think about this research?
>
> I find the argument that no laws is the fundamental law... and that the 
> universe and its laws are emergent guided by subtle mathematical 
> statistical phenomena, at the same time both alluring and annoying it 
> is somehow unsatisfactory like being served a quite empty plate with 
> nice garnish for dinner.
>
> One example of emergence from chaotic conditions is how traffic jams (aka 
> density waves) can emerge from chaotic initial conditions, becoming self 
> re-enforcing within local domains of influence... for those unlucky to be 
> stuck in them. Density wave emergence is seen across scale, for example the 
> spiral arms of galaxies can be explained as giant gravitational pile ups 
> with some fundamentally similar parallels to say a rush hour traffic jam, 
> except on vastly different scales of course and due to other different 
> factors, in the galactic case the emergent effects of a vast number of 
> gravitational inter-actions as stars migrate through these arms on their 
> grand voyages around the galactic core.
>
> This paired with the corollary argument that any attempt to discover a 
> fundamental law seems doomed to the infinite regression of then needing to 
> explain what this foundation itself rests upon leading to the "it's 
> turtles all the way down" hall of mirrors carnival house... head-banger. 
>
> Perhaps, as Wheeler argued, the world is a self-synthesizing system, and 
> the seeming order we observe, is emergent... a law without law.
>
> Here is the link to the article:
>
>
>
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine 
> 
> The Born Rule Has Been Derived From Simple Physical Principles | Quanta 
> Magazine 
>
> The new work promises to give researchers a better grip on the core 
> mystery of quantum mechanics.
>
> 
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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: Modal logic, consciousness, and matter

2019-02-22 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 3:57:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:26, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:23:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2019, at 20:18, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> > 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
>> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousness 
>> Begin?" As I have said before, the modal logic and numerical semantics 
>> written there is one way to approach the science of experience. But I think 
>> ultimately this is a logical semantics (not a material semantics), but of 
>> course belief in an actual numerical reality makes a difference.
>>
>> Here is something more along those lines:
>>
>> On modal logic and consciousness:
>>
>> *A Modal Logic for Gödelian Intuition*
>> Hasen Khudairi
>> https://philarchive.org/archive/KHUAML
>>
>> *Towards an Axiomatic Theory of Consciousness*
>> Jim Cunningham [ https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rjc/ ]
>> https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rjc/Cunningham.pdf
>>
>>
>> However I think that there is ultimately a material semantics.
>>
>>
>> I can imagine a semantic for some theory of matter, but matter itself 
>> cannot be semantical. What would that mean? Even without mechanism, I have 
>> no idea what that could mean.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I define material semantics here:
>
> *Material Semantics for Unconventional Programming*
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/
>
>
>  
>
>material semantics =
>
>  physical (*incl.* chemical+biological)
>  +
>  psychical (or experiential) semantics
>
>
> That does not assume the existence of an ontological matter. 
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the ancient Greeks, forget Aristotle and look to Epicurus.
>>
>>
>> I assume mechanism, and I just listen to the universal machine, with 
>> machine taken in the sense of Church and Turing. The notion of matter is 
>> not assumed in such definition, and we know, basically since Gödel, that 
>> they exist in arithmetic (semantically, of course).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Some "offbeat" materialism I just came across that my be of interest:
>>
>> Terry Eagleton 
>> *Materialism*, Yale University Press
>> excerpt 1: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PErJDQAAQBAJ
>> excerpt 2: 
>> http://blog.yalebooks.com/2017/02/09/material-theology-and-christian-religion/
>>
>>
>> Very nice. I would not have dare to suggest that christianism is so much 
>> materialist. I am not sure this was true during the five first hundreds 
>> years, but it is dogmatically so after 529 (closure of Plato’s academy).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Matter is an aggregation of cuisines whose recipes arise and combine to 
>> form the cookbook of nature.*
>>
>>
>> No problem with this, on the contrary. A recipe is another name for an 
>> algorithm, which is typically not made of matter, but exist in arithmetic. 
>>
>> And for the cooking, there is no need distinguish primary matter, which 
>> cannot exist with Mechanism, and matter, which obviously exist 
>> phenomenologically. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>
>
> Of course all algorithms (technically) are made of matter:
>
>
> I disagree. An algorithm is an immaterial recipe to compute a function, or 
> to implement a process, and you can do that in any universal machinery, 
> implemented in the physical reality or not. The physical reality itself is 
> not produced by an algorithm, but emerges from the first person 
> indeterminacy on all consistent computational histories, structure by the 
> observable mode. That explains quanta and qualia, in a testable (and 
> tested) way.
>

(I'don't know what this test is.)



Some accept the possibility that there can be something that is immaterial.


In philosophy, *antimaterialism* can mean one of several metaphysical or 
religious beliefs that are specifically opposed to materialism 
, the notion that *only matter 
exists*. These beliefs include:

   - • Immaterialism , a 
   philosophy branching from George Berkeley of which his idealism is a type
   - •  Dualism (philosophy of 
   mind) , a 
   philosophy which includes the claim that mental phenomena are, in some 
   respects, non-physical
   - •  Gnosticism 
   , a general class of religious 
   movements which hold that human beings have divine souls trapped in a 
   material world
   - •  Idealism 
   , which holds that the ultimate 
   nature of reality is based on 

Re: Modal logic, consciousness, and matter

2019-02-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:23:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2019, at 20:18, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ 
>> > 
>> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousness Begin?" 
>> As I have said before, the modal logic and numerical semantics written there 
>> is one way to approach the science of experience. But I think ultimately 
>> this is a logical semantics (not a material semantics), but of course belief 
>> in an actual numerical reality makes a difference.
>> 
>> Here is something more along those lines:
>> 
>> On modal logic and consciousness:
>> 
>> A Modal Logic for Gödelian Intuition
>> Hasen Khudairi
>> https://philarchive.org/archive/KHUAML 
>> 
>> 
>> Towards an Axiomatic Theory of Consciousness
>> Jim Cunningham [ https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rjc/ 
>>  ]
>> https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rjc/Cunningham.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> However I think that there is ultimately a material semantics.
> 
> I can imagine a semantic for some theory of matter, but matter itself cannot 
> be semantical. What would that mean? Even without mechanism, I have no idea 
> what that could mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I define material semantics here:
> 
> Material Semantics for Unconventional Programming
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/12/14/material-semantics-for-unconventional-programming/
> 
> 
>  
>material semantics =
> 
>  physical (incl. chemical+biological)
>  +
>  psychical (or experiential) semantics
> 
> 

That does not assume the existence of an ontological matter. 



>  
> 
> 
>> 
>> As for the ancient Greeks, forget Aristotle and look to Epicurus.
> 
> I assume mechanism, and I just listen to the universal machine, with machine 
> taken in the sense of Church and Turing. The notion of matter is not assumed 
> in such definition, and we know, basically since Gödel, that they exist in 
> arithmetic (semantically, of course).
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Some "offbeat" materialism I just came across that my be of interest:
>> 
>> Terry Eagleton 
>> Materialism, Yale University Press
>> excerpt 1: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=PErJDQAAQBAJ 
>> 
>> excerpt 2: 
>> http://blog.yalebooks.com/2017/02/09/material-theology-and-christian-religion/
>>  
>> 
> Very nice. I would not have dare to suggest that christianism is so much 
> materialist. I am not sure this was true during the five first hundreds 
> years, but it is dogmatically so after 529 (closure of Plato’s academy).
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matter is an aggregation of cuisines whose recipes arise and combine to form 
>> the cookbook of nature.
> 
> No problem with this, on the contrary. A recipe is another name for an 
> algorithm, which is typically not made of matter, but exist in arithmetic. 
> 
> And for the cooking, there is no need distinguish primary matter, which 
> cannot exist with Mechanism, and matter, which obviously exist 
> phenomenologically. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course all algorithms (technically) are made of matter:

I disagree. An algorithm is an immaterial recipe to compute a function, or to 
implement a process, and you can do that in any universal machinery, 
implemented in the physical reality or not. The physical reality itself is not 
produced by an algorithm, but emerges from the first person indeterminacy on 
all consistent computational histories, structure by the observable mode. That 
explains quanta and qualia, in a testable (and tested) way.




> 
> They are arrangements of glyphs of ink on paper  (like in a book), or are 
> electronic dots on a screen (like you are looking at right now) or are 
> magnetic polarities stored on a hard drive, etc.

This confuses a bit the truth of “2+2=4” and “”2+2=4””.



> 
> That matter "has" recipes (or algorithms) is the dialectics of Codicalism.


Matter can implement algorithm, with mechanism that is a (non obvious) theorem. 
But that does not make matter primary. It belongs to the sharable dreams of the 
universal machine.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>