On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how
spacetime emerges from quantum events where I explain this process
in detail. You will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to
many fragmentary spacetimes
On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem
On 02 Jan 2014, at 18:50, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to
On 02 Jan 2014, at 19:07, Jason Resch wrote:
There are other reasons to prefer it [MWI] besides it's answer to
the measurement problem without magical observers, including:
- Fewer assumptions
Which is nice, because the SWE+collapse is not even consistent, as it
never explains why QM is
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:06, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
The wave function says everything there is to be said about how
something is right now.
The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right
now, the
On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:
If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the
contradiction and progress toward possible
Maybe Wheeler-deWitt is right. Maybe nothing *does* happen. Maybe it only
appears to.
Just a thought. A lot of theories are timeless, in some sense.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then
I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he
took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the outside time
experience.
Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also
this...
In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an I, but instead
On 03 Jan 2014, at 07:55, Jason Resch wrote:
I sort of see the opposite trend. More and more physicists are
looking for an information based fundamental theory.
But where is the information coming from? If no where or nothing,
this is just a form of idealism.
Except that physicists
On 03 Jan 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have
reservations about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it
doesn't really solve the problems it claims to - which implies
On 03 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Liz,
Edgar has a problem with your gender
as is well known on other lists.
Edgar did not answer any of my questions too. I guess he has enough
work answering Jason.
I don't know what he means by computational space, nor if anything
related
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen
Liz,
The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature
works...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now,
because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts...
Why does
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
mind.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the
effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have
suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
What do you think about the idea that the whole course of the universe
was set at that (near) singularity at the beginning of the universe?
What do you mean by universe?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins.
In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4
Jason,
If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of
equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there
exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.
Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party
The P-time notion says that either (A)
Jason,
Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
it is.
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen
On 03 Jan 2014, at 15:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for
many female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one
who comes to mind.
Gauss said the same on Noether, and then add: --but that one is
probably not
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of
acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space
it is.
There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes
Gabriel,
See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works
and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
The P-time
Hi Edgar,
That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out.
However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give
direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive)
answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no FTL in MWI.
If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux
that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic
theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first
person view is the view of a computation, then
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no FTL in MWI.
If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux
that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic
theory
Quintin, you beat me to it, I had http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local on
my clip board when I saw your message appear. :-)
Jason
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM,
https://24.media.tumblr.com/6b06d8de192011e7a0e1179d34958785/tumblr_myu2nxlpcz1qeenqko1_500.jpg
--
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
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
That old Newtonian time still exists and is what I call Present moment
P-time. It just isn't being measured by clocks.
So Newtonian time exists but it doesn't do anything. And that is a pretty
good definition of a useless
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
Okay, and I can agree with this in some
Looks like a heirarchical Many World h-MW model to me.
I conjecture that Wheeler's ItBit empirical quantum model
is consistent with the h-MW model via ER=EPR tunneling.
Richard
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no FTL in MWI.
If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux
that MWI is local and because we already knew
Dear Bruno,
I do not understand something. Your idea seems to me to be a very
sophisticated and yat sneaky way of reintroducing Newton/Laplacean absolute
time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-established Harmony. I recall reading how much
Einstein himself loved the idea and was loath to give it up, thus
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
On Friday, January 3, 2014 2:06:26 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Looks like a heirarchical Many World h-MW model to me.
I conjecture that Wheeler's ItBit empirical quantum model
is consistent with the h-MW model via ER=EPR tunneling.
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?
If you switch it off, it
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
UNIty in diVERSity-scerir
BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems
interesting.http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote:
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
UNIty in diVERSity
-scerir
BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting.
http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328
Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
it on? I am serious!
Why not? The real
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be
On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
same...
Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the
On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote:
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
UNIty in diVERSity
-scerir
BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting.
On 4 January 2014 00:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We cannot observed something like time reversibility. We can only inferred
it from a finite number of observations, and then assume a theory which
either assumes it at the start, or explains it from other assumptions, or
perhaps
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote:
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself.
UNIty in diVERSity
-scerir
BTW, did
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the
same... Doesn't matter
On 1/3/2014 8:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I like
that!
I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here.
First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed to SR world
lines,
But it does matter how long you coast between accelerating away from Earth and the braking
maneuver in which you accelerate back toward Earth. If you don't coast at all there is
only a small effect. If you wait a long time, 10yrs, there is a big effect - which is
easily seen in terms of the
On 4 January 2014 03:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature
works...
We don't know how nature works, we only have theories. You have a theory
about how nature works. Why does your theory need a common present
On 4 January 2014 03:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many
female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to
mind.
Yes she's one of my heroes, along with Lisa Randall and Alice in
On 4 January 2014 04:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Lliz, Brent and Jason,
Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the
physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins.
Sorry I got a bit heated and didn't check my grammar, I meant to say:
So are you saying that from now on you will answer questions without trying
to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done
previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case
just
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no FTL in MWI.
If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of
On 4 January 2014 04:31, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there
exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.
Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for
a claim that
Our first topic is the relativity of simultaneity. I've asked about this,
Jason has, Gabriel has. Probably Brent and Bruno and a few others have, too
(maybe I should have taken notes). So far the answers have been a bit
vague, so I'd like to get something more precise. To start with, I'd like
I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent!
(...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :)
On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb
Hmm. Intriguing. The thing is, everyone tells me an interpretation can't
affect QM itself
.oh, I'm going to have to read the darn paper, aren't I?! (Whether it
will make a scintilla of sense to my brain (at least in some branches of
the multiverse) is another question, of course...)
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well the abstract's nice and clear, at least - they attempt to show that
quantum states are not merely information structures relating to some
(unknown) underlynig reality. Presumably that indicates that they *are* the
reality.I will read on.
On 4 January 2014 11:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...
On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at
That's the truth! But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance.
Brent
On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health
care system...
On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
And we won't get one.. As long as the lobby system runs Washington DC. Too
much money is being made on the current dysfunctional health system we are
stuck with.
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at
67 matches
Mail list logo
