Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo- religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. 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 truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR and Brent,
I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be
something fundamental?
Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very
important. In that sense physics and math are fundamental.
Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume
at the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because
we cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion
of nothing.
There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
fundamental. It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually
suggested by Bruno):
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math
Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in,
then it is virtuously circular.
Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need
to postulate a universal base. You need at least the assumption of
the laws of addition and multiplication, or abstraction and
application (with the combinators). But then you don't need, nor
can use, anything else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can
be explained from there (even easily if comp is invoked at the
metalevel, but this is no more needed after the UDA is understood
(normally).
But you need an explanation for arithmetic.
Really?
We need to start from some non trivial agreement, and if we want
arithmetic, or a universal system, we have to assume it, as we cannot
justify it with less.
Then the explanation is usually provided in high school, and relies
without doubt to its natural implementation in our brain.
Why do we conceptualize similar things as enumerable? Why did we
invent numbers and addition and multiplication?
To be sure we have enough meat to the family. To survive in the
arithmetical reality, relatively to our current history.
That's the advantage of the ring, you can start at any point you
think you understand and explain other things in terms of it.
Well, that is doing a theory. We can't justify the axioms, but we can
believe in them. The question you ask applies to *any* scientific
theory, if only because they assume arithmetic at the start. The
result here is that in comp, we cannot even add one axiom to very
elementary arithmetic (à-la Robinson).
Our intuitive understanding of the numbers remains quite mysterious.
In a sense comp reduces all mysteries to that only one. How can we
make sense of N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} in a finite time is a total
mystery. But comp can explain why, for machines (even in a very weak
sense) it has to be felt as mysterious.
We can say: God creates the natural Numbers. It is way to say that
we don't know where they come from.
The new point is that with comp, God did not need to create anything
else.
That's why we don't teach children arithmetic by giving the Peano's
axioms. First, we give them counting and examples.
That is the best way to teach. Examples first, theory after.
We're starting a science, empirical observation.
Sure, then we do a theory, and we can test it by its consequences. No
problem with this. That is how computationalist science proceeds.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote: On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote: But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories? Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism. Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise. That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave function. But is it? It's only better than Copenhagen. What about Penrose? And what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation. I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. No one thinks the MWI is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it may be a good approximation (or it may not, of course). ?? It's an interpretation. I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi- realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self- contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?). It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some knowledge. Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Well, it looks like Edgar isn't interested in $100 and a bottle of wine. Or more likely the only evidence he has and can ever have for P-time is his own simplistic logic. Jason, you're only saying what Edgar has been told many times over in slightly different words. But he has his fingers in his ears and is chanting la la la right now. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Searching the Internet for evidence of time travelers
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128 The Internet is to time travel what smartphones are to UFO sightings: in the latter case, the I didn't have a camera at the time excuse is harder to swallow. Of course, in both cases we are hypothesising entities which are potentially more intelligent than us, so looking for them in the context of our own mental models might be flawed (I'm playing devil's advocate here -- I believe it to be very unlikely that we are being visited by either time travellers or aliens). Cheers Telmo. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Searching the Internet for evidence of time travelers
I knew a brilliant, experienced, standard, agnostic, peerreviewed physicist and sucessful businessman that studied takions: particles with superluminical speeds, and the possibility of time travel using them. He was cheated and robbed by a sect of almost analphabet freaks that easily convinced him that they were aliens teletransported to the Earth using the technology that he envisioned. That is not an invention. 2014/1/2 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128 The Internet is to time travel what smartphones are to UFO sightings: in the latter case, the I didn't have a camera at the time excuse is harder to swallow. Of course, in both cases we are hypothesising entities which are potentially more intelligent than us, so looking for them in the context of our own mental models might be flawed (I'm playing devil's advocate here -- I believe it to be very unlikely that we are being visited by either time travellers or aliens). Cheers Telmo. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Searching the Internet for evidence of time travelers
Poor guy and interesting story. I don't find that hard to believe at all. I think there's an intelligence paradox: up to a certain level you are harder to fool, but after a certain point you may become so aware of the the scope of our ignorance that outlandish ideas become acceptable again. A vaccine against this might be the development of strong empirical skills (being good at estimating priors, for example). I think it's possible to be or become very intelligent without developing good empirical skills. I would say your friend made a simple mistake: just because it is likely that our reality is extremely weird does not mean that one specific instance of weirdness is likely. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I knew a brilliant, experienced, standard, agnostic, peerreviewed physicist and sucessful businessman that studied takions: particles with superluminical speeds, and the possibility of time travel using them. He was cheated and robbed by a sect of almost analphabet freaks that easily convinced him that they were aliens teletransported to the Earth using the technology that he envisioned. That is not an invention. 2014/1/2 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128 The Internet is to time travel what smartphones are to UFO sightings: in the latter case, the I didn't have a camera at the time excuse is harder to swallow. Of course, in both cases we are hypothesising entities which are potentially more intelligent than us, so looking for them in the context of our own mental models might be flawed (I'm playing devil's advocate here -- I believe it to be very unlikely that we are being visited by either time travellers or aliens). Cheers Telmo. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in time. So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the explanation. In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2. No, but it will travel STL! Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interesting idea, similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability. But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's inequality. Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure TS cuts it). I tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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,
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote: On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote: But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories? Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism. Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise. That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave function. But is it? It's only better than Copenhagen. What about Penrose? And what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation. I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. *No one *thinks the MWI is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it *may* be a good approximation (or it may not, of course). ?? It's an *interpretation*. I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?). It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some knowledge. Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic. Bruno Bruno, you may take this as a joke. But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to enter the egg. In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together, And all together, like the intelligent sperm, The states decide which state is selected to enter the physical world.. Richard 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Edgar But ItBit, a theory proposed by Wheeler, predicts that in the intermediate phase between observations, the properties of the particle vanish, as if the particle vanished down a ER=EPR wormhole tunnel, perhaps to a more abstract plane of consciousness or a higher world among many. ItBit is a Many World Theory (MWT). Richard On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in time. So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the explanation. In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2. No, but it will travel STL! Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interesting idea, similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability. But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's inequality. Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure TS cuts it). I tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential. -- 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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Hi Jason, No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it seems. First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t) coordinate times (that would be true of an SR constant velocity example, but not the twins' GR acceleration based example). Their watches show they don't, and when they compare watches both twins agree with the readings on both watches. Not only do the twins have different ages but their clocks accurate show that age difference. Both twins agree that the traveling twin aged less because comparing their clocks both mechanical and biological confirms that. Thus they have different (x,y,z,t) coordinates yet they DO interact. Why? Only because they share the exact same present moment which is the only place interactions can occur whether clock times are the same or not. And that present moment P-time is a completely independent kind of time from clock time. There is simply no way around this. Yes, you are correct the twins shaking hands and comparing watches confirms a shared present moment by direct experiment if the (x,y,z) coordinates are the same but not they they different. However the argument to deduce a common present moment when (x,y,z) coordinates are different is simple and clear. I've already posted it a couple of times but will summarize it again. The twins start and end at the same (x,y,z) coordinates. At both times we agree they share the same present moment. Their passages from point A to point B must both be represented by continuous lines, one curved, one straight. During every point during that passage both twins continuously experience their own present moment time without interruption and those present times are the same when they start and when they meet up again. Thus we must logically conclude that at every present time moment for either observer there absolutely must have been a corresponding present time moment for the other. This is not directly observable but is the only logical conclusion based on their starting and ending at a shared present moment and both their spacetime travels being continuous with no breaks in between. The easy way to understand this is that every present moment for either twin, the other twin must actually exist and be doing something too. There is absolutely no way around that! Thus they must share a common present moment in which they are existing and doing something even when they are separated spatially. Clearly this cannot be experimentally confirmed (measured) but it is the only tenable logical conclusion unless you think things pop in and out of existence which they don't. Now again for the nth time. don't try to analyze this by relativistic clock time theory. That correctly describes how clock times change during the trip but has no relevance to present time whatsoever! Two completely different kinds of time. Thus the only possible conclusion is that there is a common universal shared present moment time which is completely different from clock time. Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 3:15:27 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgar, I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to postulate anything new. Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates can interact, where t is coordinate time. It seems like you believe that because the twins are different ages (in different proper times), that they cannot interact. But they can, because each has traced exactly 10 light years through space-time (their coordinate times are the same). So you might say everything with the same coordinate time, at the same place (x, y, z) the same, shares a present moment. But you cannot use this fact to extrapolate to spatially separated things sharing a present. For this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same coordinate times) differs in different reference frames. Jason On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and neutrons of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light. Goodness gracious! Edgar Jason is correct - electron-electron and electron-proton interactions are mediated by photons. Only nucleon-nucleon interactions are mediated by different stuff (gluons in that case), but for all practical purposes, the strong force is irrelevant to the phenomenon of handshaking. And if it were, say in some particle accelerator, the gluons also travel at the speed of light and their present is spread across all proper times. Which gets us to the
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a single state of the superposition. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up. Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have just a single state. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in time. So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the explanation. In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2. No, but it will travel STL! Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interesting idea, similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability. But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's inequality. Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure TS cuts it). I tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential. -- 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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Hi Jason, No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it seems. First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t) coordinate times (that would be true of an SR constant velocity example, but not the twins' GR acceleration based example). Their watches show they don't, and when they compare watches both twins agree with the readings on both watches. Not only do the twins have different ages but their clocks accurate show that age difference. Both twins agree that the traveling twin aged less because comparing their clocks both mechanical and biological confirms that. Thus they have different (x,y,z,t) coordinates yet they DO interact. Why? Only because they share the exact same present moment which is the only place interactions can occur whether clock times are the same or not. And that present moment P-time is a completely independent kind of time from clock time. There is simply no way around this. You are describing coordinate time. Yes, you are correct the twins shaking hands and comparing watches confirms a shared present moment by direct experiment if the (x,y,z) coordinates are the same but not they they different. However the argument to deduce a common present moment when (x,y,z) coordinates are different is simple and clear. I've already posted it a couple of times but will summarize it again. The twins start and end at the same (x,y,z) coordinates. At both times we agree they share the same present moment. Their passages from point A to point B must both be represented by continuous lines, one curved, one straight. During every point during that passage both twins continuously experience their own present moment time without interruption and those present times are the same when they start and when they meet up again. Thus we must logically conclude that at every present time moment for either observer there absolutely must have been a corresponding present time moment for the other. You have demonstrated it for two observers at the same x,y,z, but it does not logically follow for different x,y,z's. This is not directly observable So we should maintain some doubt.. but is the only logical conclusion SR shows there is another possible conclusion. based on their starting and ending at a shared present moment and both their spacetime travels being continuous with no breaks in between. This can also be explained by a an (approximately) continuous, four-dimensional reality, in which all events are embedded. The easy way to understand this is that every present moment for either twin, the other twin must actually exist and be doing something too. In some relativistic frames, with separated twins might be considered dead, and the other still alive, while in another frame, the former twin is still and the other is dead. The only sense in which the other is guaranteed to exist and be doing something is that both twin's world tubes exist and are eternally embedded in the four dimensional reality. There is absolutely no way around that! Thus they must share a common present moment in which they are existing and doing something even when they are separated spatially. Clearly this cannot be experimentally confirmed (measured) but it is the only tenable logical conclusion unless you think things pop in and out of existence which they don't. Now again for the nth time. don't try to analyze this by relativistic clock time theory. That correctly describes how clock times change during the trip but has no relevance to present time whatsoever! Two completely different kinds of time. I fail to see how this is any different from coordinate time vs. proper time in SR. Thus the only possible conclusion is that there is a common universal shared present moment time which is completely different from clock time. Why doesn't four dimensionalism work? Jason On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 3:15:27 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgar, I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to postulate anything new. Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates can interact, where t is coordinate time. It seems like you believe that because the twins are different ages (in different proper times), that they cannot interact. But they can, because each has traced exactly 10 light years through space-time (their coordinate times are the same). So you might say everything with the same coordinate time, at the same place (x, y, z) the same, shares a present moment. But you cannot use this fact to extrapolate to spatially separated things sharing a present. For this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same coordinate times) differs in different reference frames. Jason On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Richard, On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi- realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self- contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?). It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some knowledge. Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic. Bruno Bruno, you may take this as a joke. But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to enter the egg. In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together, And all together, like the intelligent sperm, The states decide which state is selected to enter the physical world.. I know that life is hard and that spermatozoids have a lot of hard time to convince an ovule to let it go in. But entering the physical world does not make much sense to me as there are no such reality in my favorite theory. What exists in arithmetic is a notion of more probable computations/consistent extensions, and the correct description of them must give the laws of physics, so we can test the theory. Thanks for letting me take your metaphor as a joke, you reassure me :) Bruno Richard 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 have correctly gotten part of
the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how
spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic
to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the
frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL
and non-locality?
Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not
a single state of the superposition.
I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say
it in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary
base).
A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up
and Down particles.
The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up,
Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag:
the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles.
but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is
Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up.
Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can
have just a single state.
I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is
a single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly
contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the
universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and
it is perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all
possible complementary states of the universe.
In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary
intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that
the INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all
sets (which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It
is similar to a^0 = 1.
With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets
in the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average
universal machine observes when it looks below its substitution level
relatively to its most probable computations/universal neighbor.
Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the
explanation is in the material, probabilistic, intensional nuance of
self-reference.
Bruno
Jason
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is
just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the
system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are
just some labels.
I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
required for the MWI?)
Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1
x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is
correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say
this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely
many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins
in a way that violates Bell's inequality.
If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do,
before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which
wouldn't be the first time.
I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as
measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each
other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment
(and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an
observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension
measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has
already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their
superposition.
Jason
I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made
sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...
The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for
EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one,
where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to
go either way in time.
So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological
implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I
don't understand the explanation.
In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light
itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one
imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?). It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some knowledge. Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic. Bruno Bruno, you may take this as a joke. But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to enter the egg. In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together, And all together, like the intelligent sperm, The states decide which state is selected to enter the physical world.. I know that life is hard and that spermatozoids have a lot of hard time to convince an ovule to let it go in. But entering the physical world does not make much sense to me as there are no such reality in my favorite theory. What exists in arithmetic is a notion of more probable computations/consistent extensions, and the correct description of them must give the laws of physics, so we can test the theory. Thanks for letting me take your metaphor as a joke, you reassure me :) Bruno But Bruno, do you agree that my metaphor is arithmetically and scientifically possible? Richard Richard 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the
frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and
non-locality?
Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a
single state of the superposition.
I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say it
in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary base).
A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up and
Down particles.
The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up,
Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag:
the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles.
but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down
+ Measured_Down_Up.
Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have
just a single state.
I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is a
single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly
contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the
universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and it is
perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all possible
complementary states of the universe.
In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary
intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that the
INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all sets
(which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It is similar
to a^0 = 1.
With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets in
the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average universal
machine observes when it looks below its substitution level relatively to
its most probable computations/universal neighbor.
Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the explanation
is in the material, probabilistic, intensional nuance of self-reference.
Bruno
Bruno,
According to a prediction of ItBit, a theory of the creation of matter
from information proposed by Wheeler,
the properties or measure of particles vanish in between observations.
Its measure upon detection-observation is determined by the binary question
asked by the observer.
If the same question is asked by every MWI observer, an unchanged world
with the expected measures is maintained.
This would amount to a controlled experiment.
Say have half the observers ask a different question and flip back and
forth (for detection of the resulting signal)..
Is that arithmetically possible.
Richard
Jason
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is
just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system
ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some
labels.
I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
required for the MWI?)
Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1
x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is
correlated
at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL
because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2.
But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's
inequality.
If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do,
before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be
the first time.
I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement.
The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain
isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of
say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two
particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position,
which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are
entangled in their superposition.
Jason
I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense
to
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Bruno, Hear Hear! On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. 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 truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the party ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I can make it any clearer. Please, I respectfully ask you to reread it and think it through. And there are only 2 frames under consideration in our example. Forget about all others. Second you are again trying to analyze present moment time with SR. It won't work for reasons I've repeatedly explained. 4 dimensionalism (SR and GR work great - for clock time, not for Present moment time which you've already agreed is a whole different kind of time)... In the common present moment someone is either actually dead or not dead. It is true that it's not alway possible to measure when this happened in any particular clock time frame. But that is just trying to assign a t value to the time of death. Nevertheless someone is always either dead or not dead in the actual shared present moment Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Jason, No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it seems. First the twins do NOT have the same (x,y,z,t) coordinate times (that would be true of an SR constant velocity example, but not the twins' GR acceleration based example). Their watches show they don't, and when they compare watches both twins agree with the readings on both watches. Not only do the twins have different ages but their clocks accurate show that age difference. Both twins agree that the traveling twin aged less because comparing their clocks both mechanical and biological confirms that. Thus they have different (x,y,z,t) coordinates yet they DO interact. Why? Only because they share the exact same present moment which is the only place interactions can occur whether clock times are the same or not. And that present moment P-time is a completely independent kind of time from clock time. There is simply no way around this. You are describing coordinate time. Yes, you are correct the twins shaking hands and comparing watches confirms a shared present moment by direct experiment if the (x,y,z) coordinates are the same but not they they different. However the argument to deduce a common present moment when (x,y,z) coordinates are different is simple and clear. I've already posted it a couple of times but will summarize it again. The twins start and end at the same (x,y,z) coordinates. At both times we agree they share the same present moment. Their passages from point A to point B must both be represented by continuous lines, one curved, one straight. During every point during that passage both twins continuously experience their own present moment time without interruption and those present times are the same when they start and when they meet up again. Thus we must logically conclude that at every present time moment for either observer there absolutely must have been a corresponding present time moment for the other. You have demonstrated it for two observers at the same x,y,z, but it does not logically follow for different x,y,z's. This is not directly observable So we should maintain some doubt.. but is the only logical conclusion SR shows there is another possible conclusion. based on their starting and ending at a shared present moment and both their spacetime travels being continuous with no breaks in between. This can also be explained by a an (approximately) continuous, four-dimensional reality, in which all events are embedded. The easy way to understand this is that every present moment for either twin, the other twin must actually exist and be doing something too. In some relativistic frames, with separated twins might be considered dead, and the other still alive, while in another frame, the former twin is still and the other is dead. The only sense in which the other is guaranteed to exist and be doing something is that both twin's world tubes exist and are eternally embedded in the four dimensional reality. There is absolutely no way around that! Thus they must share a common present moment in which they are existing and doing something even when they are separated spatially. Clearly this cannot be experimentally confirmed (measured) but it is the only tenable logical conclusion unless you think things pop in and out of existence which they don't. Now again for the nth time. don't try to analyze this by relativistic clock time theory. That correctly describes how clock times change during the trip but has no relevance to present time whatsoever! Two completely different kinds of time. I fail to see how this is any different from coordinate time vs. proper time in SR. Thus the only possible conclusion is that there is a common universal shared present moment time which is completely different from clock time.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 (entanglement networks) which link and align via shared events. But all this occurs in the same underlying computational (not dimensional) space which everything is part of. The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. It's just that that frame (entanglement network) is not linked to that of the observer until a common event (observer's measurement of one particle's spin) links and aligns the particles' spin orientation frame to that of the observer's. Prior to that they are completely separate spacetimes. That's why the spins are indeterminate in the frame of the observer until he measures one and by doing so links and aligns their frame with his. This process falsifies FTL, non-locality, MWI (unless you want to call the fragmentary entanglement networks separate worlds. They are separate spacetime fragments but not really separate 'worlds' since they continually merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.) Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a single state of the superposition. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up. Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have just a single state. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in time. So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the explanation. In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further. That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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 (entanglement networks) which link and align via shared events. But all this occurs in the same underlying computational (not dimensional) space which everything is part of. The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. Edgar, Your theory contradicts the ItBit theory of Wheeler which predicts that the properties of all particles vanish including spin in the phase of their existence between observations. All properties fixed at their creation are therefore subsequently lost; only to be restored by the binary yes-no question asked by an observer at detection. Richard It's just that that frame (entanglement network) is not linked to that of the observer until a common event (observer's measurement of one particle's spin) links and aligns the particles' spin orientation frame to that of the observer's. Prior to that they are completely separate spacetimes. That's why the spins are indeterminate in the frame of the observer until he measures one and by doing so links and aligns their frame with his. This process falsifies FTL, non-locality, MWI (unless you want to call the fragmentary entanglement networks separate worlds. They are separate spacetime fragments but not really separate 'worlds' since they continually merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.) Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a single state of the superposition. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up. Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have just a single state. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly... The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in time. So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the explanation. In fact, it's generally assumed
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I would add a (*) on observer role. In MWI the observer plays no special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the case for many interpretations where the observer plays some special privileged role, such as having the ability to collapse wave functions. Yes, and that is why I believe the MWI is superior to other interpretations, but that's only my opinion and the universe may have a different one. [your chart] says for MWI the observer plays no part in many world but it also says no to counterfactual definiteness meaning you can't speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been observed. That is true for MWI because measurements don't have (single) definite results. Yes they do, the photon I just measured has a polarization of exactly 42.7%, true other John Clarks measured other photons and found other values, but this john Clark got exactly 42.7% for this photon. Both those things can't be right. Can you explain why not? Not having counterfactual definiteness means something is NOT in a definite state if you don't observe it, observer independent says they ARE in a definite state even if you don't know what it is. And in many world there is no unique future but it says there is no unique past, and that's not what the theory says. There is no unique past as shown in the quantum erasure experiment. OK you got me, I should have said with the MWI there is ALMOST a unique past. According to Everett when 2 different things could happen then both do, one happens in one universe and one happens in the other; for example a photon goes through a half silvered mirror in one universe and is reflected in the other. Usually after that the differences between the universes increase and they remain separated for eternity, however if the initial difference is very small and if you set up the experiment very very carefully then the 2 universes might not further diverge but instead evolve into identical states again. Because the 2 universes are identical again they come back together and we in the single merged universe see evidence that the photon was reflected off the half silvered mirror and equally strong evidence that the photon went straight through the half silvered mirror. The information to decide between these 2 possibilities no longer exists in our universe because both past states could have evolved into the present state. But none of the possible alternate pasts we see from looking back from our particular thread of the multiverse are very different from each other, but our alternate futures can be radically different. 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 square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the distinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, it can only give you probable locations of the electron but it could be anywhere. You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on a photographic plate. This is the measurement problem and the problem that the MWI elegantly solves that most other quantum interpretations do not; it's the only reason I think MWI is better than the competition. But that doesn't prove its correct of course, everybody could be wrong, maybe MWI is just the best of a bad lot. The only thing I'm certain of is that whatever turns out to be true will be crazy. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 03:01:22PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Which gets us to the more important point. You idealise a handshake as
instantaneous as a demonstration of your present moment, but in fact
those interactions Jason was alluding to are smeared out over a
temporal duration of the order of a few picoseconds (a duration well
measurable by current day technology - my laptop's CPU clock cycles on
a sub-picosecond timescale, for example).
You must have a VERY fast laptop! :-)
Ahem! - I meant nanoseconds (1x10^{-9}s). I got my metric prefixes
mixed up. Sorry..
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I can make it any clearer. Please, I respectfully ask you to reread it and think it through. And there are only 2 frames under consideration in our example. Okay, let's use a concrete example from here on, because I think it will help: Two twins, Sam and Pam are born on the same day in the year 2000. Sam remains on Earth, and Pam goes to Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) at 80% the speed of light and then comes back at the same speed. When the twins are reunited in 2010, Sam is 10 years old and Pam is 6 years old. I think you are asking me to consider the two frames of each twin. I agree that every moment between when Pam and Sam are separated, until they are reunited, each twin exists and is doing something, and this is necessary the case in all possible frames from all possible external observers too, since they eventually meet up again. However, to me there is already one apparent contradiction in the idea of a common present when considering this example. Sam experiences 10 years of time, 10 years of biological ageing and 10 years of memories, yet Pam only experiences 6. If there is a common present, how can Sam experience more of them than Pam? It seems Pam only experiences 60% of the present moments that Sam does. How do you account for this with P-time? Forget about all others. Second you are again trying to analyze present moment time with SR. It won't work for reasons I've repeatedly explained. 4 dimensionalism (SR and GR work great - for clock time, not for Present moment time which you've already agreed is a whole different kind of time)... Present moment time in the twin example is equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through space time. Pam's journey toward proxima centauri is the hypotenuse of a 3-4-5 triangle. She moves 4 light years through space, and 3 through proper time (she is 3 when she gets to the destination), but the path through space time is the hypotenuse, which is 5 light years long. Meanwhile, 5 years have transpired on Earth and Sam is 5 years old. During Pam's return voyage, each twin traces out another 5 light years through space time. So when the twins are reunited, in 2010, Sam's coordinate time is sqrt(0^2 + 10^2) (going 0 ly through space and 10 through proper time), and Pam's coordinate time is sqrt(8^2 + 6^2), having gone a total of 8 ly through space and 6 through proper time. Since things only interact when their x,y,z, and (coordinate time) t are the same, the 10 year old Sam who shakes hands with Pam is shaking hands with the 6-year-old Pam, since they both have a coordinate time of 10 light years. In the common present moment someone is either actually dead or not dead. It is true that it's not alway possible to measure when this happened in any particular clock time frame. But that is just trying to assign a t value to the time of death. Nevertheless someone is always either dead or not dead in the actual shared present moment You can say the common universal present is all things that have the same coordinate time t, but only in the context of a particular inertial frame. The moment you allow different intertial frames, there can be no agreement on what the current coordinate time is for different things that are in different locations. Consider Pam's perspective during her trip from Earth to Proxima Centauri. She might consider herself to be at rest, and Earth, Sam and Proxima Centauri to be flying through the universe at 80% c. Since these things are moving so fast, she measures the distance between Earth and Proxima centauri to be length contracted to 60% of what Sam believes it to be. She thinks it is 2.4 ly, not 4 ly. Therefore, at Proxima Centauri's present speed it will take 3 years to get to her (2.4 / 0.8). By the time Proxima Centauri arrives, she believes her coordinate time is only 3 light years (as is Sam's from her perspective), she thinks Sam is only (3 * 60%) = 1.8 years old, while Sam thinks he is 5 by the time she gets to Proxima centauri. How does your notion of a common present address this? How can Sam believe he is 5, while Pam believes he is 1.8 (when Pam arrives at her destination). Note both twins agree that Pam is 3 at the time she arrives at Proxima Centauri, and both twins agree that when they meet at Earth in 2010 that Sam is 10 and that Pam is 6. This shows you can't extrapolate from common agreements when two people are together to common agreements when two people are apart, just because there is agreement when they meet up again. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Hi Jason, No, sadly you haven't quite gotten it yet but you are getting closer it seems. First the twins do NOT have the same
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 have correctly gotten part of the
theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime
emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm...
Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the
frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and
non-locality?
Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a
single state of the superposition.
I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say it
in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary base).
A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up and
Down particles.
Thanks, I will be sure to make that point more explicit in the future.
The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up,
Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag:
the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles.
but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down
+ Measured_Down_Up.
Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have
just a single state.
I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is a
single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly
contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the
universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and it is
perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all possible
complementary states of the universe.
In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary
intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that the
INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all sets
(which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It is similar
to a^0 = 1.
I think I was following until you said it is like a^0 = 1..
Jason
With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets in
the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average universal
machine observes when it looks below its substitution level relatively to
its most probable computations/universal neighbor.
Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the explanation
is in the material, probabilistic, intensional nuance of self-reference.
Bruno
Jason
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is
just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system
ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some
labels.
I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
required for the MWI?)
Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1
x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is
correlated
at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL
because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2.
But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's
inequality.
If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do,
before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be
the first time.
I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement.
The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain
isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of
say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two
particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position,
which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are
entangled in their superposition.
Jason
I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense
to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...
The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR,
and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all
influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in
time.
So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological
implications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't
understand the explanation.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events Okay. Just as a tip, which I think will make things a little easier for others to follow a conversation, is to generally it is best to answer new questions within the same thread where the question is asked, and ideally with responses in-line with the question. This is the usual convention on this list. To be clear, I think it is fine to say I've already answered question X in thread Y, but if it is a new question in thread Z, it is probably better to answer it in thread Z. This is particularly true as it is common for a single thread to grow to include dozens, if not hundreds of responses, and locating the answer in that thread can become very difficult. where I explain this process in detail. You will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to many fragmentary spacetimes (entanglement networks) which link and align via shared events. But all this occurs in the same underlying computational (not dimensional) space which everything is part of. The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. It's just that that frame (entanglement network) is not linked to that of the observer until a common event (observer's measurement of one particle's spin) links and aligns the particles' spin orientation frame to that of the observer's. Prior to that they are completely separate spacetimes. That's why the spins are indeterminate in the frame of the observer until he measures one and by doing so links and aligns their frame with his. This process falsifies FTL, non-locality, MWI (unless you want to call the fragmentary entanglement networks separate worlds. They are separate spacetime fragments but not really separate 'worlds' since they continually merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.) But the point I and others have repeatedly made is that this is a local hidden variable theory, which is unworkable without FTL influences (given Bell's theorem, which is a mathematical proof). Jason Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a single state of the superposition. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up. Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have just a single state. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the first time. I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position, which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are entangled in their superposition. Jason I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, Taking your points in order. No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock time respectively, but it's all experienced in a common present moment which doesn't have a separate measurable t value of its own. Only clock time has measurable t values, but they all occur in the present moment. This is a direct consequence of what we started out with, that clock time t values vary differently, but always in the same present momemt. No contradiction. that's just the way things work. No, present moment time is NOT equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through spacetime. Imagine the paths are drawn on graph paper, Sam's points directly above one another and Pam's in a curve off to the side from Sam's start point to Sam's end point. Present moment time is simply the horizontal lines on the graph paper that connect the two world lines. There is always a horizontal graph paper line that connects both world lines so there is always a shared present moment but the clock time t values are different for those intersections. Again, the only way to compare differing clock time values is with respect to the common present moment represented by the horizontal graph paper lines which both twins exist in when they compare. That is the only way a comparison is even possible. I'm not sure I'm clear by what you mean by coordinate time and how it differs from my 'clock time'. Aren't they the same? Assuming so then in your last paragraphs you are once again doing an entirely correct analysis of clock time variations which I accept completely but which does not describe Present moment P-time. You have to stop trying to measure and analyze Present moment time by clock time arguments. It doesn't work because they are two completely separate kinds of time. Present moment time is measured not by clock time t values but by the fact two observers exist in the same present moment and thus are able to shake hands and compare (differing clock time t values). I think you may suspect I'm on to something here, and I think you may be getting close to getting it. It's really quite a simple obvious concept. You just have to put aside the old paradigm of a single kind of time and think it through. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Sorry, but you didn't address the argument I presented. I don't see how I can make it any clearer. Please, I respectfully ask you to reread it and think it through. And there are only 2 frames under consideration in our example. Okay, let's use a concrete example from here on, because I think it will help: Two twins, Sam and Pam are born on the same day in the year 2000. Sam remains on Earth, and Pam goes to Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) at 80% the speed of light and then comes back at the same speed. When the twins are reunited in 2010, Sam is 10 years old and Pam is 6 years old. I think you are asking me to consider the two frames of each twin. I agree that every moment between when Pam and Sam are separated, until they are reunited, each twin exists and is doing something, and this is necessary the case in all possible frames from all possible external observers too, since they eventually meet up again. However, to me there is already one apparent contradiction in the idea of a common present when considering this example. Sam experiences 10 years of time, 10 years of biological ageing and 10 years of memories, yet Pam only experiences 6. If there is a common present, how can Sam experience more of them than Pam? It seems Pam only experiences 60% of the present moments that Sam does. How do you account for this with P-time? Forget about all others. Second you are again trying to analyze present moment time with SR. It won't work for reasons I've repeatedly explained. 4 dimensionalism (SR and GR work great - for clock time, not for Present moment time which you've already agreed is a whole different kind of time)... Present moment time in the twin example is equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through space time. Pam's journey toward proxima centauri is the hypotenuse of a 3-4-5 triangle. She moves 4 light years through space, and 3 through proper time (she is 3 when she gets to the destination), but the path through space time is the hypotenuse, which is 5 light years long. Meanwhile, 5 years have transpired on Earth and Sam is 5 years old. During Pam's return voyage, each twin traces out another 5 light years through space time. So when the twins are reunited, in 2010, Sam's coordinate time is sqrt(0^2 + 10^2) (going 0 ly through space and 10 through proper time), and Pam's coordinate time is sqrt(8^2 + 6^2), having gone a total of 8 ly through space and 6 through proper time. Since
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I would add a (*) on observer role. In MWI the observer plays no special function in the evolution of the wave function. This is not the case for many interpretations where the observer plays some special privileged role, such as having the ability to collapse wave functions. Yes, and that is why I believe the MWI is superior to other interpretations, but that's only my opinion and the universe may have a different one. [your chart] says for MWI the observer plays no part in many world but it also says no to counterfactual definiteness meaning you can't speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been observed. That is true for MWI because measurements don't have (single) definite results. Yes they do, the photon I just measured has a polarization of exactly 42.7%, true other John Clarks measured other photons and found other values, but this john Clark got exactly 42.7% for this photon. Okay, we are only disagreeing on the meaning of single definite result, here you are using it in the third-person sense. Both those things can't be right. Can you explain why not? Not having counterfactual definiteness means something is NOT in a definite state if you don't observe it, observer independent says they ARE in a definite state even if you don't know what it is. And in many world there is no unique future but it says there is no unique past, and that's not what the theory says. There is no unique past as shown in the quantum erasure experiment. OK you got me, I should have said with the MWI there is ALMOST a unique past. According to Everett when 2 different things could happen then both do, one happens in one universe and one happens in the other; for example a photon goes through a half silvered mirror in one universe and is reflected in the other. Usually after that the differences between the universes increase and they remain separated for eternity, however if the initial difference is very small and if you set up the experiment very very carefully then the 2 universes might not further diverge but instead evolve into identical states again. Because the 2 universes are identical again they come back together and we in the single merged universe see evidence that the photon was reflected off the half silvered mirror and equally strong evidence that the photon went straight through the half silvered mirror. The information to decide between these 2 possibilities no longer exists in our universe because both past states could have evolved into the present state. But none of the possible alternate pasts we see from looking back from our particular thread of the multiverse are very different from each other, but our alternate futures can be radically different. 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 square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the distinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, it can only give you probable locations of the electron but it could be anywhere. Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you are using the uncertainty in the first person perspective. You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicit when you switch between them. You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on a photographic plate. This is the measurement problem and the problem that the MWI elegantly solves that most other quantum interpretations do not; it's the only reason I think MWI is better than the competition. There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions - Explains more (appearance of collapse, and arguably also the Born rule (with Gleason's theorem)) - Explains how quantum computers work - Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) - No faster-than-light influences - Explains universe at times before there was conscious life to observe it - Preserves CPT symmetry, time reversibility, linearity - Is realist on things other than our observations (here is something else out there, besides what is in our minds) I would say the evidence for MWI isn't just strong, but overwhelming, given the evidence for QM is overwhelming and MWI is the only theory of QM consistent with other (overwhelmingly established theories such as special relativity). But that doesn't prove its correct of course, everybody could be
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, I think it preferable to discuss posts under the relevant topic. That's why I started a new topic. It doesn't make sense for me for a single thread to morph to many new unrelated topics. That is why your original post on this subject would have made more sense to be posted under my new topic to which it refers rather than this 'wavefunctions' topic to which it is only peripheral. There are over 500 posts in some topics, most of which are not germane to the original topic. That's confusing and hard to refer to relevant subthreads. In any case, the theory I stated is NOT a hidden variable theory. There are no hidden variables at all in my explanation. Please, respectfully, reread it and see there are none... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:55:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events Okay. Just as a tip, which I think will make things a little easier for others to follow a conversation, is to generally it is best to answer new questions within the same thread where the question is asked, and ideally with responses in-line with the question. This is the usual convention on this list. To be clear, I think it is fine to say I've already answered question X in thread Y, but if it is a new question in thread Z, it is probably better to answer it in thread Z. This is particularly true as it is common for a single thread to grow to include dozens, if not hundreds of responses, and locating the answer in that thread can become very difficult. where I explain this process in detail. You will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to many fragmentary spacetimes (entanglement networks) which link and align via shared events. But all this occurs in the same underlying computational (not dimensional) space which everything is part of. The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. It's just that that frame (entanglement network) is not linked to that of the observer until a common event (observer's measurement of one particle's spin) links and aligns the particles' spin orientation frame to that of the observer's. Prior to that they are completely separate spacetimes. That's why the spins are indeterminate in the frame of the observer until he measures one and by doing so links and aligns their frame with his. This process falsifies FTL, non-locality, MWI (unless you want to call the fragmentary entanglement networks separate worlds. They are separate spacetime fragments but not really separate 'worlds' since they continually merge and align at common events in the SAME computational reality.) But the point I and others have repeatedly made is that this is a local hidden variable theory, which is unworkable without FTL influences (given Bell's theorem, which is a mathematical proof). Jason Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:11:57 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part of the theory I proposed in my separate topic Another stab at how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Please refer to that topic to confirm... Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in the frames of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTL and non-locality? Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is not a single state of the superposition. The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up, but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it is Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up. Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles can have just a single state. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels. I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required for the MWI?) Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2 and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's inequality. If I
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 1/2/2014 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote: On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote: But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories? Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism. Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise. That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave function. But is it? It's only better than Copenhagen. What about Penrose? And what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation. I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of course). ?? It's an /*interpretation*/. I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?). It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some knowledge. Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic. I agree. Fuchs' approach treats the wave-function as information, which should be consistent with comp. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, No, your graph is incorrect. As I said it's the horizontal grid lines of the graph paper itself that represent present time. Where those intersect the two world lines represents the shared present moment P-time... The lines are NOT slanted like you have them... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 1:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Taking your points in order. No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock time respectively, but it's all experienced in a common present moment which doesn't have a separate measurable t value of its own. Only clock time has measurable t values, but they all occur in the present moment. This is a direct consequence of what we started out with, that clock time t values vary differently, but always in the same present momemt. No contradiction. that's just the way things work. No, present moment time is NOT equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through spacetime. Imagine the paths are drawn on graph paper, Sam's points directly above one another and Pam's in a curve off to the side from Sam's start point to Sam's end point. Present moment time is simply the horizontal lines on the graph paper that connect the two world lines. There is always a horizontal graph paper line that connects both world lines so there is always a shared present moment but the clock time t values are different for those intersections. [image: Inline image 1] That is not quite true. If Pam's path curves off to the side, then horizontal lines stop reaching Pam after Sam's sixth year. If, however, you connect points (which I have done with black lines) that correspond to equal coordinate times (that is, where the total length of the blue and pink lines traced out is the same) then you get the versions of Sam and Pam that can interact with one another. If you consider things from Pam's reference frame, then the horizontal lines you proposed would be different than if you considered the situation from Sam's reference frame. Again, the only way to compare differing clock time values is with respect to the common present moment represented by the horizontal graph paper lines which both twins exist in when they compare. That is the only way a comparison is even possible. Are you saying it is impossible to say how old Sam is when Pam gets to Proxima Centauri? If so, then I agree. However if it is impossible to give a definite agree for Sam when Pam gets there, it seems that rules out the notion of a common present. I'm not sure I'm clear by what you mean by coordinate time and how it differs from my 'clock time'. Aren't they the same? No, clock time is proper time, the y-axis in the above graph. Coordinate time, however, is the clock time of each individual's rest frame. In other words, what they consider their proper time to be. It is equal in the above graph where the lengths of the blue and pink lines are equal. That is, when Sam is 1 year old, both he and Pam have gone one light year through space-time, and likewise, when Pam is 1 year old, she considers both her and Sam to have traveled one light year through space time. In both of these instances, the coordinate time is equal. Assuming so then in your last paragraphs you are once again doing an entirely correct analysis of clock time variations which I accept completely but which does not describe Present moment P-time. You have to stop trying to measure and analyze Present moment time by clock time arguments. It doesn't work because they are two completely separate kinds of time. Present moment time is measured not by clock time t values but by the fact two observers exist in the same present moment and thus are able to shake hands and compare (differing clock time t values). I have no problem with explaining how both of them can shake hands, but your theory of P-time seems to have a problem with answering how old Sam is when Pam gets to Proxima centauri. This must have an objective definite answer if there is a common objective present, but it has no definite answer unless an inertial reference frame is given (or assumed). If you assume some inertial reference frame, then that is fine. You can say there is one unique present, but what is the motivation to give this inertial frame some privilege over the others? How do we decide what absolute rest is? Jason I think you may suspect I'm on to something here, and I think you may be getting close to getting it. It's really quite a simple obvious concept. You just have to put aside the old paradigm of a single kind of time and think it through. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:32:19 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Sorry,
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Edgar, You have not yet answered what I consider to be the most important question concerning this example: How old is Sam when Pam arrives at Proxima Centauri? Sam says 5, Pam says 1.8, some alien might say 4. Is there a definite answer to this question according to P-time? Is one of the right and the others wrong? Jason On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, No, your graph is incorrect. As I said it's the horizontal grid lines of the graph paper itself that represent present time. Where those intersect the two world lines represents the shared present moment P-time... The lines are NOT slanted like you have them... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 1:45:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Taking your points in order. No contradiction. Sam and Pam do experience 10 and 6 years of clock time respectively, but it's all experienced in a common present moment which doesn't have a separate measurable t value of its own. Only clock time has measurable t values, but they all occur in the present moment. This is a direct consequence of what we started out with, that clock time t values vary differently, but always in the same present momemt. No contradiction. that's just the way things work. No, present moment time is NOT equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through spacetime. Imagine the paths are drawn on graph paper, Sam's points directly above one another and Pam's in a curve off to the side from Sam's start point to Sam's end point. Present moment time is simply the horizontal lines on the graph paper that connect the two world lines. There is always a horizontal graph paper line that connects both world lines so there is always a shared present moment but the clock time t values are different for those intersections. [image: Inline image 1] That is not quite true. If Pam's path curves off to the side, then horizontal lines stop reaching Pam after Sam's sixth year. If, however, you connect points (which I have done with black lines) that correspond to equal coordinate times (that is, where the total length of the blue and pink lines traced out is the same) then you get the versions of Sam and Pam that can interact with one another. If you consider things from Pam's reference frame, then the horizontal lines you proposed would be different than if you considered the situation from Sam's reference frame. Again, the only way to compare differing clock time values is with respect to the common present moment represented by the horizontal graph paper lines which both twins exist in when they compare. That is the only way a comparison is even possible. Are you saying it is impossible to say how old Sam is when Pam gets to Proxima Centauri? If so, then I agree. However if it is impossible to give a definite agree for Sam when Pam gets there, it seems that rules out the notion of a common present. I'm not sure I'm clear by what you mean by coordinate time and how it differs from my 'clock time'. Aren't they the same? No, clock time is proper time, the y-axis in the above graph. Coordinate time, however, is the clock time of each individual's rest frame. In other words, what they consider their proper time to be. It is equal in the above graph where the lengths of the blue and pink lines are equal. That is, when Sam is 1 year old, both he and Pam have gone one light year through space-time, and likewise, when Pam is 1 year old, she considers both her and Sam to have traveled one light year through space time. In both of these instances, the coordinate time is equal. Assuming so then in your last paragraphs you are once again doing an entirely correct analysis of clock time variations which I accept completely but which does not describe Present moment P-time. You have to stop trying to measure and analyze Present moment time by clock time arguments. It doesn't work because they are two completely separate kinds of time. Present moment time is measured not by clock time t values but by the fact two observers exist in the same present moment and thus are able to shake hands and compare (differing clock time t values). I have no problem with explaining how both of them can shake hands, but your theory of P-time seems to have a problem with answering how old Sam is when Pam gets to Proxima centauri. This must have an objective definite answer if there is a common objective present, but it has no definite answer unless an inertial reference frame is given (or assumed). If you assume some inertial reference frame, then that is fine. You can say there is one unique present, but what is the motivation to give this inertial frame some privilege over the others? How do we decide what absolute rest is? Jason I think you may suspect I'm on to something here, and I think you may
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Edgar, I too await your answer to this simple question with great interest. Your statment that it's the horizontal grid lines of the graph paper itself that represent present time indicates that present time is a preferred frame of reference. Specifically, it is the frame in which those lines *are*horizontal, which is the rest frame of the Earth. Once you've answered Jason's question, I will be interested to know what singles out that preferred frame, and what experimentally observable consequences that will have (does your theory involve going back to a geocentric viewpoint, as well as a Newtonian version of absolute time?) I think you may suspect Einstein was on to something here, and I think you may be getting close to getting it. It's really quite a simple obvious concept. You just have to put aside the old paradigm of a single kind of time and think it through. But first, the $64,000 question... How old is Sam when Pam arrives at Proxima Centauri? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Searching the Internet for evidence of time travelers
In the 1970s, Uri Geller managed to persuade a load of eminent physicists that he had psychic powers. Physicists assume that you are being honest, because the penalties for not doing so in science are huge (namely, you will never be taken seriously again). Geller was a defector in a world of cooperators, in game-heory terms. He had less success with magicians, of course, who quickly worked out what he was really doing. On 3 January 2014 00:21, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I knew a brilliant, experienced, standard, agnostic, peerreviewed physicist and sucessful businessman that studied takions: particles with superluminical speeds, and the possibility of time travel using them. He was cheated and robbed by a sect of almost analphabet freaks that easily convinced him that they were aliens teletransported to the Earth using the technology that he envisioned. That is not an invention. 2014/1/2 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7128 The Internet is to time travel what smartphones are to UFO sightings: in the latter case, the I didn't have a camera at the time excuse is harder to swallow. Of course, in both cases we are hypothesising entities which are potentially more intelligent than us, so looking for them in the context of our own mental models might be flawed (I'm playing devil's advocate here -- I believe it to be very unlikely that we are being visited by either time travellers or aliens). Cheers Telmo. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 3 January 2014 07:07, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on a photographic plate. This is the measurement problem and the problem that the MWI elegantly solves that most other quantum interpretations do not; it's the only reason I think MWI is better than the competition. There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions - Explains more (appearance of collapse, and arguably also the Born rule (with Gleason's theorem)) - Explains how quantum computers work - Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) - No faster-than-light influences - Explains universe at times before there was conscious life to observe it - Preserves CPT symmetry, time reversibility, linearity - Is realist on things other than our observations (here is something else out there, besides what is in our minds) I would say the evidence for MWI isn't just strong, but overwhelming, given the evidence for QM is overwhelming and MWI is the only theory of QM consistent with other (overwhelmingly established theories such as special relativity). I await Brent's response with interest. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. No, if that were the case it would be a hidden variable and the measurement statistics would necessarily satisfy Bell's inequality. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God? Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them. Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most). Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the belief establishment. Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to communicate what is strictly incommunicable. Yes, certainly. Terms and the usage of terms can be as slippery as an eel (though I have not handled any eels so I cannot verify that they are indeed slippery). Religion – at least this is my understanding of the term – derives from the Latin religo a verb tense meaning more or less to rebind – as in book binding where many pages are bound together into a larger cohesive whole bound book. Now there are several ways one can interpret that – the re-binding could have been intended to mean the re-bonding of the individual soul with the larger cosmic story – as told by that faith tradition; or it could mean the binding of many disparate individuals into a single church. I tend to use religion to refer to the organizational and intellectual structures that are erected by faiths and are the manifestation of organized faith practice; while using spirituality (or spiritual experience) to indicate the exquisitely personal deep inner-experiences of those who seek and have faith – and that could be having faith in some religion. If they actively engage in seeking spiritual enlightenment etc. I see that as a personal spiritual pursuit – even if they are doing so within the intellectual, doctrinal confines of some religion (i.e. organized faith based system). Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in meta-self-correctness). You can bet on that J Any idea or edifice of ideas seeking to explain everything is a prime candidate for takeover by that most deadly combination of wolves and the many sheep who follow them. on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. I believe I thought; therefore I believe I am J it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief systems prevail. If you can control the beliefs, you can control
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/2/2014 10:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: No, present moment time is NOT equivalent to the lengths of the paths traced by each twin through spacetime. Imagine the paths are drawn on graph paper, Sam's points directly above one another and Pam's in a curve off to the side from Sam's start point to Sam's end point. Present moment time is simply the horizontal lines on the graph paper that connect the two world lines. That's what everyone else in the world calls coordinate time. But how to choose what is horizontal. You're obviously choosing it normal to Sam's world line. But relativity shows there is not special about Sam's world line. We could as well have chosen any inertial (i.e. straight) world line, say Bob's, where Bob is moving left at 0.2c. So, yes each choice defines present moments, but different present moments depending on the choice. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 2:46:44 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Edgar, I too await your answer to this simple question with great interest. Your statment that it's the horizontal grid lines of the graph paper itself that represent present time indicates that present time is a preferred frame of reference. Specifically, it is the frame in which those lines *are* horizontal, which is the rest frame of the Earth. Once you've answered Jason's question, I will be interested to know what singles out that preferred frame, and what experimentally observable consequences that will have (does your theory involve going back to a geocentric viewpoint, as well as a Newtonian version of absolute time?) I think you may suspect Einstein was on to something here, and I think you may be getting close to getting it. It's really quite a simple obvious concept. You just have to put aside the old paradigm of a single kind of time and think it through. But first, the $64,000 question... How old is Sam when Pam arrives at Proxima Centauri? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 09:56, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Now let me suggest another conceptual approach which might make the notion of Present moment P-time easier to understand. Ahem, naughty Edgar, the credit for this suggestion should have gone to me since I've been pointing this out from the start. Begin before relativity with the old Newtonian notion of time. There is an absolute standard time throughout the universe and an absolute common universal present moment. Everything about time is Newtonian to start with. Now imagine relativistic time theory comes along and proves that clocks weren't measuring that old Newtonian time but something else called relativistic clock time instead, BUT that the old Newtonian time still exists. It just isn't measured by clock time. That old Newtonian time still exists and is what I call Present moment P-time. It just isn't being measured by clocks. So long as there were no relativistic effects clock time was isomorphic to P-time, but as soon as relativistic effects appeared it became clear that clock time was never measuring Present moment P-time. Nevertheless Present moment P-time actually still exists just as everyone clearly experiences it does. It just isn't measured by clock time. All relativity did was separate clock time from Present moment P-time and prove they weren't the same thing. It didn't make Present moment P-time go away, it just showed it wasn't the same as clock time. Just think this through. It's quite clear for all the reasons I've put forth already, the basic proof being that clock times vary in the same Present moment which proves they aren't the same thing. What actually happened was that Newtonian time effectively set c to infinity. Relativity merely demonstrated the results of c being finite (where c is any maximum attainable speed, by the way - it happens to be lightspeed in a vaccuum). -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Brent, No, they aren't hidden variables. Not at all. Read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events for the detailed explanation. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 3:16:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: The spin orientation of the two particles is fixed in their mutual frame when they are created. No, if that were the case it would be a hidden variable and the measurement statistics would necessarily satisfy Bell's inequality. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the distinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, it can only give you probable locations of the electron but it could be anywhere. Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result. Forget MWI forget theory forget interpretations, whenever you perform a experiment with photons you always get a single definite result, and the photon always leaves a specific clearcut dot on the photographic plate and never a grey smudge. (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you are using the uncertainty in the first person perspective. Please, don't start with the 1p/ 3p shit, I hear enough of that from Bruno. You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicit when you switch between them. And you are using MWI and the wave function as if they were interchangeable, they are not. If a electron hits a photographic plate and you see a dot on the plate right there then you know which branch in the multiverse you're in, the branch where the electron hit right there. But you still don't know what the probability distribution was so you don't know what the wave function squared was. And even if you did know the function squared you still wouldn't know what the wave function itself was because it contains imaginary numbers and so when squared 2 very different wave functions can yield identical probability distributions. There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions Fewer assumptions but more universes. Which are more expensive? I think assumptions are probably more expensive so MWI is more economical, but I could be wrong. Explains how quantum computers work Other interpretations could do that too but I think Many Worlds does it in a way that is simpler for humans to understand. That's why I think if quantum computers ever become common Many Worlds will become the standard interpretation, programing a quantum computer would just be too complicated if you thought about it in other ways. Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) I agree. No faster-than-light influences If that were true (and if MWI were realistic, and it is) then from experiment we'd know for certain that MWI is dead wrong, we can never know for certain that a theory is right but we can know for certain that it's wrong. But it isn't true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer too. Funny thing about science, it doesn't matter who's asking the question, it still needs an answer. I also want to know about the preferred frame question. What are the observable consequences? I also want to know about the maths, which I assume you have worked out in order to have a theory worthy of the name. But take your time. You've managed to ignore quite a few questions I've asked for quite a while now, so I don't suppose you'll manage these either. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 10:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Edgar, Everything you describe above is consistent with coordinate time (which is equal to the time reported by a clock at absolute rest). The problem then becomes defining some reference for absolute rest... You can do it, but it won't explain anything that is not already accounted for by relativity. Ooh, please sir, I know what it is! I suggested the CMB might define Edgar's absolute rest frame :-) (But I think I will have to wait a long time before he tells me the testable consequences that differentiate his theory from SR.) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
2014/1/2 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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 square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the distinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, it can only give you probable locations of the electron but it could be anywhere. Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result. Forget MWI forget theory forget interpretations, whenever you perform a experiment with photons you always get a single definite result, and the photon always leaves a specific clearcut dot on the photographic plate and never a grey smudge. (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you are using the uncertainty in the first person perspective. Please, don't start with the 1p/ 3p shit, I hear enough of that from Bruno. You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicit when you switch between them. And you are using MWI and the wave function as if they were interchangeable, they are not. If a electron hits a photographic plate and you see a dot on the plate right there then you know which branch in the multiverse you're in, the branch where the electron hit right there. But you still don't know what the probability distribution was so you don't know what the wave function squared was. And even if you did know the function squared you still wouldn't know what the wave function itself was because it contains imaginary numbers and so when squared 2 very different wave functions can yield identical probability distributions. There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions Fewer assumptions but more universes. Which are more expensive? I think assumptions are probably more expensive so MWI is more economical, but I could be wrong. Explains how quantum computers work Other interpretations could do that too but I think Many Worlds does it in a way that is simpler for humans to understand. That's why I think if quantum computers ever become common Many Worlds will become the standard interpretation, programing a quantum computer would just be too complicated if you thought about it in other ways. Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) I agree. No faster-than-light influences If that were true (and if MWI were realistic, and it is) then from experiment we'd know for certain that MWI is dead wrong, we can never know for certain that a theory is right but we can know for certain that it's wrong. But it isn't true. There is no FTL in MWI... you can assert all year long or cry louder the contrary, that doesn't render it true... Quentin John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, Jason seems to be making an honest intellectual effort to understand the theory, whereas you appear to be intent on criticizing it on the basis of your persistent misunderstandings of it. Jason deserves answers because he's seriously interested in understanding it. Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:21:05 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:17, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. No we won't. I followed his argument, and I want an answer too. Funny thing about science, it doesn't matter who's asking the question, it still needs an answer. I also want to know about the preferred frame question. What are the observable consequences? I also want to know about the maths, which I assume you have worked out in order to have a theory worthy of the name. But take your time. You've managed to ignore quite a few questions I've asked for quite a while now, so I don't suppose you'll manage these either. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
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... Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, Did my message below slip past you? I noticed you hadn't replied to it yet. Jason On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in the discussion here. I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is fundamental rather than emergent. How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be emergent. The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent. This looks like an evasion. When the its an illusion answer doesn't work, try its emergent or some combination of the two. Come on. Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not fundamentally real) can be emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the obvious. The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to understand. Right, that is good. Merely stating that this is that ignores the point. Isn't that how explanations work? Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc. There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier. You might consider this as some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of processing done by our brain. All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one without the other. Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence of states. Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious experience without time. Maybe this is the result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it. Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge. You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge though. Where does that which drives the emergence obtain? From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc. All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global truths, no absolute space, etc. I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego. This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the appearance of change. It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look for explanations of it. Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned to read Greek, sorry) is that change is an illusion. Nevermind the persistence of that illusion! I have explained several times that it is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc. The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and misdirection... Do you think a computer can be conscious? Trick question? No. Are you a computer? I believe my
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 10:32, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Jason seems to be making an honest intellectual effort to understand the theory, whereas you appear to be intent on criticizing it on the basis of your persistent misunderstandings of it. Jason deserves answers because he's seriously interested in understanding it. I'm seriously interested in understanding it too, I merely phrase my responses facetiously because of your persistently patronising and offensive tone. However you have again given a non-answer. You're hiding behind comments on my motives, rather than answering my questions. It is beginning to look as though you simply can't give answers to questions that arise naturally from our best understanding of the universe. Everyone deserves answers to serious questions, regardless of their perceived motives or attitude, although to be honest most people on this list have probably dismissed you by now. I just keep asking because I'm one of the few people who is prepared to go the extra mile even for people who appear to be crackpots*. My questions are, however, just as valid as everyone else's, and can't be grounded in a misunderstanding of your theory, because so far you haven't presented a coherent theory. If you have any answers to my questions then you should come out with them, rather than coming out with more of the I'm so clever and you're all so stupid rhetoric. if you haven't got answers, just admit it. So far unanswered... * How does your theory work out what is happening at a given P-time in different reference frames? What answer does it give for the specific case Jason asked about? * Your theory singles out a preferred frame. What are the observable consequences? (hint: high energy cosmic rays may help probe this feature of space-time.) * Show us the maths. *This doesn't include Bruno, by the way, because he never approached the point of appearing to be a crackpot - which is to say he always gave sensible answers, no matter what the apparent motivations of the questioner. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... Jason On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, I have already asked your last question repeatedly, but have received no answer. Maybe you will have better luck. It seems that despite Edgar having been repeatedly rude and condescending to me (and others) he is happy to dish it, out but can't take it, even when it is merely a note of facetiousness added to some serious questions. I won't hold my breath waiting for his apology. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
NSA racing to build quantum computer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html I guess they don't believe in the collapse either. :-) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because it happens when we are in different clock times as well Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high energy cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen, before it can really be called a theory. Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's obvious, and no one understands you isn't enough (well, not unless you're a teenager, at least.) See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for any number of approaches that might make this understandable. -- 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 group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 11:54 AM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 07:07, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on a photographic plate. This is the measurement problem and the problem that the MWI elegantly solves that most other quantum interpretations do not; it's the only reason I think MWI is better than the competition. There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions - Explains more (appearance of collapse, and arguably also the Born rule (with Gleason's theorem)) - Explains how quantum computers work - Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) - No faster-than-light influences - Explains universe at times before there was conscious life to observe it - Preserves CPT symmetry, time reversibility, linearity - Is realist on things other than our observations (here is something else out there, besides what is in our minds) I would say the evidence for MWI isn't just strong, but overwhelming, given the evidence for QM is overwhelming and MWI is the only theory of QM consistent with other (overwhelmingly established theories such as special relativity). I await Brent's response with interest. 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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. The basic problem of the Copenhagen interpretation was the Heisenberg cut. Bohr essentially said it was our choice. Somewhere there had to be a classical, irreversible result if the theory was actually to predict anything, BUT we could chose where to put it. Where ever we put it, on the classical side probabilities were predicted with the Born rule. MWI says we there are different orthogonal worlds corresponding to the different experimental outcomes. This is just the Heisenberg cut in another form. MWI helps itself to the CI view that the experimenter/instrument choice determines what variables will be measured. Now decoherence theory has come along and tried to make this objective - not dependent on what the experimenter had in mind. It is proposed that an instrument, by it's interaction with the environment defines a pointer basis or einselects a basis in which the system+instrument reduced density matrix will evolve to be approximately diagonal. Notice that from a mathematical standpoint reduced means doing an average over a randomized environment - so this isn't so deterministic as advertised - it's statistical-mechanics deterministic. But the problem remains that finding the pointer basis or even proving that there is one is an open problem which is the same (fuzzy) problem as the CI problem of defining the Heisenberg cut. I think there's a solution, but that's not the same as MWI has solved it. The question of whether MWI derives the Born rule or not also seems unresolved. Gleason's theorem and Everett's own arguments prove (I think) that if QM predicts probabilities they must be proportional to the norms of projections of the Hilbert space state. But this implies inherently continuous probabilities. It's not clear how this relates to the existence of multiple worlds. Deutsch has given frequentist interpretation, i.e. the number of worlds with a given outcome is proportional to the probability of that outcome. But this implies and infinite number of worlds to realize an irrational probability value. But if you don't take Deutsch's frequentist model, then probability is an extra variable you tag onto branch worlds; which seems pretty much like collapsing the wave-function. Whether MWI has FTL influence seems like a muddled question to me. MWI happens in Hilbert space, not spacetime. So it's not clear what is meant by entanglement traveling out along lightcones. Is this a dynamic evolution that is derived from the SE? from QFT? The examples seem to imply that there is no entanglement until there is a measurement, but experiments like the Bucky Ball EPR show that decoherence doesn't require a measurement in the usual sense. 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
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because it happens when we are in different clock times as well I think it does lead to a problem. Pam and Sam start at the same time, they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing something at this time. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3. You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in this common present P-time when Pam arrives. Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and both are experiencing something. Then Sam turns 2 years old. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Finally, Pam arrives back on Earth, Sam is 10 and Pam is 6. They shake hands and hug. Notice though that from one P-time to the next, and so on, continuously, in one P-time Pam was at her destination, and Sam was definitely doing something, and he was definitely less than 2 years old, because in a later P-time Sam had his 2nd birthday at the same time Pam was already on her way back to Earth. Yet, in an equally valid perspective (according to relativity) Sam's 2nd birthday happens before Pam reaches her destination. So if there is a single P-time, how can the event, Sam's 2nd birthday, happen when Pam is on her way back AND happen before Pam reaches her destination. If every P-time is ordered and sequential, this simply isn't possible. You have to accept that there is more than one consistent way to order the succession of present moments, which means there is no common present moment everyone shares. You are right that without some principle X we wouldn't inhabit the same reality, but relativity shows that some principle X is not, and cannot be a global, shared, agreed upon succession of present moments. The some principle X is instead, a four-dimensional existence, space-time, and consistent presents are just slices through this space time. If you envision it in this way, you can perfectly account for all the consistent views and orderings either Sam, Pam, or Bob might have about which events happen when, and where, and in what order. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, How do you know From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!? How do you measure that? You have to be careful to eliminate SR time dilation effects which are MUTUAL illusions of measurement that disappear when relative motion ceases, and stick with only the actual time dilation (clock slowing) of GR effects of accelerations which are real and actual and are all that is left when the twins meet up again. It is only these GR acceleration effects which account for the different clock time t values when Pam and Sam meet up again. The SR time dilation effects vanish at that point since they are due only to relative linear velocities which then cease. What we do know is that both Pam's and Sam's clock time proceeds in an orderly sequential fashion through their own experience of the present moment, and that present moment is shared before and after the journey. Thus the same present moment was inhabited DURING the trip as well, but what each is doing at any particular present time moment is not necessarily knowable by the other. Edgar Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:19:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... Jason On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, I answered Jason directly. See that post. By not answering, yes. There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable. It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible - they are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality - should have observable consequences, probably for
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing what when? How are you measuring it to know it's true? And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. SR effects are not 'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are transient and relative and equal and opposite for both observers. Both see the other's time slow but that is just measurements, their time is not actually slowing in any absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are illusions of measurement that exist only during relative motion. So they are not relevant when trying to analyze what is happening in the present moment. GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock. I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved and your question is answered... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because it happens when we are in different clock times as well I think it does lead to a problem. Pam and Sam start at the same time, they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing something at this time. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3. You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in this common present P-time when Pam arrives. Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and both are experiencing something. Then Sam turns 2 years old. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Finally, Pam arrives back on Earth, Sam is 10 and Pam is 6. They shake hands and hug. Notice though that from one P-time to the next, and so on, continuously, in one P-time Pam was at her destination, and Sam was definitely doing something, and he was definitely less than 2 years old, because in a later P-time Sam had his 2nd birthday at the same time Pam was already on her way back to Earth. Yet, in an equally valid perspective (according to relativity) Sam's 2nd birthday happens before Pam reaches her destination. So if there is a single P-time, how can the event, Sam's 2nd birthday, happen when Pam is on her way back AND happen before Pam reaches her destination. If every P-time is ordered and sequential, this simply isn't possible. You have to accept that there is more than one consistent way to order the succession of present moments, which means there is no common present moment everyone shares. You are right that without some principle X we wouldn't inhabit the same reality, but relativity shows that some principle X is not, and cannot be a global, shared, agreed upon succession of present moments. The some principle X is instead, a four-dimensional existence, space-time, and consistent presents are just slices through this space time. If you envision it in this way, you can perfectly account for all the consistent views and orderings either Sam, Pam, or Bob might have about which events happen when, and where, and in what order. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, How do you know From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!? How do you measure that? Pam sees the distance to Proxima Centauri as 2.4 ly, and coming at her at 0.8 ly / year (80% c). She gets there in 3 years from her point of view. From Sam's view, it is not the distance between Earth and Proxima Centauri that is length-contracted, but Pam's ship, which he sees as 60 meters long when Pam sees it as 100 meters long. Therefore, at her speed of 80% it takes Pam 5 years to get there (4.0 ly / (0.8 ly / year)). You have to be careful to eliminate SR time dilation effects which are MUTUAL illusions of measurement that disappear when relative motion ceases, and stick with only the actual time dilation (clock slowing) of GR effects of accelerations which are real and actual and are all that is left when the twins meet up again. It is not GR that explains the 4 year age discrepancy effects between the twins. It is special relativity. Imagine there were no accelerations at all, but Pam was born on a space ship traveling 0.8 c past Earth, at the same time Sam was born. Then you still get the situation that Pam thinks Sam is 1.8 when she arrives at Proxima Centauri, when Sam thinks he is 5. No accelerations occurred, they were just always in different reference frames. It is only these GR acceleration effects which account for the different clock time t values when Pam and Sam meet up again. The SR time dilation effects vanish at that point since they are due only to relative linear velocities which then cease. What we do know is that both Pam's and Sam's clock time proceeds in an orderly sequential fashion through their own experience of the present moment, and that present moment is shared before and after the journey. Thus the same present moment was inhabited DURING the trip as well, but what each is doing at any particular present time moment is not necessarily knowable by the other. Then what does P-time tell us that SR doesn't? Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:19:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgar, I realized there is another problem. It is not just that we don't what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an orderly or logical manner. From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday! If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views... Jason On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's consistent with SR. Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an answer to this problem which exists in SR. I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our clocks are the same or not. There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical, and I've given the logical reasoning... What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity does not or cannot? Thanks for your answers. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not. You did answer, but your answer is that you did not know (you said it what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer without a defined reference frame). However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his fifth birthday or not? If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/2/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 10:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Edgar, Everything you describe above is consistent with coordinate time (which is equal to the time reported by a clock at absolute rest). The problem then becomes defining some reference for absolute rest... You can do it, but it won't explain anything that is not already accounted for by relativity. Ooh, please sir, I know what it is! I suggested the CMB might define Edgar's absolute rest frame :-) Hey, I suggested it first. :-) But the thing about the CMB rest frame is that it's position dependent due to expansion of the universe. Just look at Ned Wright's diagrams. So it's not a single inertial frame, it's an epoch at which the proper time to the big-bang is the same for all the stuff that's always been locally stationary. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing what when? I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment as I described it. The different answers depend on different reference frames, which you can consider as straight lines dividing the past and future (but at different angles depending on one's velocity through space). [image: Inline image 1] If you consider the gold and purple stars as two different events, the person moving to the right sees the present as all events on the blue line, and so they see the purple star happen before the yellow star, and vice versa for the observer moving to the left, whose present is represented by the red line. They see the yellow star come before the purple star. How are you measuring it to know it's true? 4 light years away, at 80% the speed of light. It is no different than figuring out how long it takes to travel 4 miles at 0.8 miles per year. However, when travelling at these speeds, you have to contend with length contraction and time dilation (which are two aspects of the same phenomenon seen from two different perspectives). See: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html for a good explanation. And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. You cannot disregard them. Otherwise you cannot explain why Pam is 6 when she meets with Sam at 10. SR effects are not 'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are transient and relative and equal and opposite for both observers. Both see the other's time slow but that is just measurements, their time is not actually slowing in any absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are illusions of measurement that exist only during relative motion. So they are not relevant when trying to analyze what is happening in the present moment. They aren't illusions, from each one's own reference frame, the other is going more slowly through time. GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock. Relativity explains clock desynchronization. GR only comes into play when gravity is concerned. Pam would still be 6 and Sam 10, even if they accelerated instantly, or if Pam was already in motion when they were both born. I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved and your question is answered... It's the SR effects that explain the age differences, and Pam doesn't age 4 years when she decelerates. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because it happens when we are in different clock times as well I think it does lead to a problem. Pam and Sam start at the same time, they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing something at this time. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3. You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in this common present P-time when Pam arrives. Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and both are experiencing something. Then Sam turns 2 years old. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Finally, Pam arrives back on Earth, Sam is 10 and Pam is 6. They shake hands and hug. Notice though that from one P-time to the next, and so on, continuously, in one P-time Pam was at her destination, and Sam was definitely doing something, and he was definitely less than 2 years old, because in a later P-time Sam had
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Brent, Aside from the above two caveats, that seems a good summary of the problems with the MWI, (which I was vaguely aware of before, but am now far less vaguely). I'm not sure what to think about the FTL aspects, as I said I don't understand the MWI explanation of EPR. If you (or anyone) can elucidate...? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. As Edgar pointed out, time dilation is mutual, but only while velocities are constant. Your diagram demonstrated that the straight line parts of Pam's movement could be mapped either way onto Sam's (just tilt the diagram. But you can't may the entire trajectory onto Earth time by tilting the diagram. Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs. On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing what when? I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment as I described it. The different answers depend on different reference frames, which you can consider as straight lines dividing the past and future (but at different angles depending on one's velocity through space). [image: Inline image 1] If you consider the gold and purple stars as two different events, the person moving to the right sees the present as all events on the blue line, and so they see the purple star happen before the yellow star, and vice versa for the observer moving to the left, whose present is represented by the red line. They see the yellow star come before the purple star. How are you measuring it to know it's true? 4 light years away, at 80% the speed of light. It is no different than figuring out how long it takes to travel 4 miles at 0.8 miles per year. However, when travelling at these speeds, you have to contend with length contraction and time dilation (which are two aspects of the same phenomenon seen from two different perspectives). See: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html for a good explanation. And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. You cannot disregard them. Otherwise you cannot explain why Pam is 6 when she meets with Sam at 10. SR effects are not 'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are transient and relative and equal and opposite for both observers. Both see the other's time slow but that is just measurements, their time is not actually slowing in any absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are illusions of measurement that exist only during relative motion. So they are not relevant when trying to analyze what is happening in the present moment. They aren't illusions, from each one's own reference frame, the other is going more slowly through time. GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock. Relativity explains clock desynchronization. GR only comes into play when gravity is concerned. Pam would still be 6 and Sam 10, even if they accelerated instantly, or if Pam was already in motion when they were both born. I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved and your question is answered... It's the SR effects that explain the age differences, and Pam doesn't age 4 years when she decelerates. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse together, shake hands, and compare our (different) clock times. If there weren't such a common present moment distinct from our different clock times we could do none of those things because we would be in different moments of existence. We wouldn't even inhabit the same reality. Obviously that's not a function of being in the same clock time, because it happens when we are in different clock times as well I think it does lead to a problem. Pam and Sam start at the same time, they are both zero and at Earth. They kiss each other good bye and Pam goes off into space. The present moment advances and both Pam and Sam experience something, they are now slightly older and both doing and experiencing something at this time. A little time later, they are both slightly older, and they are both experiencing something. and so on, and this keeps happening, each of them experiences one moment after the other. Now, eventually, the event happens where Pam gets to her destination, Pam is now 3. You agreed in an earlier e-mail that Sam is definitely doing something in this common present P-time when Pam arrives. Then a little time later, both are slightly older, and
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
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 he *need* the common present anyway? Why can't he put a computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and just have them communicate with their temporal / spatial neighbours? Physics being local indicates something like this is what occurs in the universe anyway, so -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. So even if we start in Pam's reference frame where she is still, she has to stop (putting her back in the reference frame where Sam is 5 (not 1.8), then accelerate to 0.8 c back toward Earth, which she will see as length contracted to 2.4 ly again, and she will experience as taking 3 years, but in this frame, of heading back toward Earth at 0.8 c, Sam is not 5, but 7, so when she gets there after 3 years, Sam is (as she expects) 10 years old. It isn't the acceleration which causes her age to suddenly change, but rather, her changing frames of reference (present moments), that causes her perspective of Sam to radically change, depending on her velocity. As Edgar pointed out, time dilation is mutual, but only while velocities are constant. Their relative velocity in relation to each other, and therefore their relative time dilations and length contractions, are always the same. Your diagram demonstrated that the straight line parts of Pam's movement could be mapped either way onto Sam's (just tilt the diagram. But you can't may the entire trajectory onto Earth time by tilting the diagram. I'm not sure what you mean by this.. Apologies if I'm teaching my gradnmother to suck eggs. No worries. Let me know if my example or explanation still does not make sense. :-) Jason On 3 January 2014 15:25, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, An excellent question. First of all let's stick with the actual example of only Sam and Pam. Now how do you know all this stuff about who is doing what when? I calculate it from the parameters of the experiment as I described it. The different answers depend on different reference frames, which you can consider as straight lines dividing the past and future (but at different angles depending on one's velocity through space). [image: Inline image 1] If you consider the gold and purple stars as two different events, the person moving to the right sees the present as all events on the blue line, and so they see the purple star happen before the yellow star, and vice versa for the observer moving to the left, whose present is represented by the red line. They see the yellow star come before the purple star. How are you measuring it to know it's true? 4 light years away, at 80% the speed of light. It is no different than figuring out how long it takes to travel 4 miles at 0.8 miles per year. However, when travelling at these speeds, you have to contend with length contraction and time dilation (which are two aspects of the same phenomenon seen from two different perspectives). See: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html for a good explanation. And again the important point to understand is that you MUST disregard SR relative velocity effects which are illusory and non-permanent and vanish when the relative velocities cease when they meet again. You cannot disregard them. Otherwise you cannot explain why Pam is 6 when she meets with Sam at 10. SR effects are not 'real' in the sense of being absolute. They are transient and relative and equal and opposite for both observers. Both see the other's time slow but that is just measurements, their time is not actually slowing in any absolute permanent sense. By that I mean they are illusions of measurement that exist only during relative motion. So they are not relevant when trying to analyze what is happening in the present moment. They aren't illusions, from each one's own reference frame, the other is going more slowly through time. GR acceleration affects on the other hand are real and absolute and experienced the same by both observers as the slowing of only the accelerating twin's clock relative to the non-accelerating twin's clock. Relativity explains clock desynchronization. GR only comes into play when gravity is concerned. Pam would still be 6 and Sam 10, even if they accelerated instantly, or if Pam was already in motion when they were both born. I think when temporary SR effects are eliminated this problem is resolved and your question is answered... It's the SR effects that explain the age differences, and Pam doesn't age 4 years when she decelerates. Jason On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:39:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, That's very simple P-time allows us to explain how there is a present moment in which we experience our mutual existence, are able to converse
Re: NSA racing to build quantum computer
On 1/2/2014 4:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-seeks-to-build-quantum-computer-that-could-crack-most-types-of-encryption/2014/01/02/8fff297e-7195-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_print.html I guess they don't believe in the collapse either. :-) Quantum computers have many applications for today’s scientific community, including the creation of artificial intelligence. But the NSA fears the implications for national security. Artificial products always tend to take over when the natural version is in short supply. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Richard On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 he *need* the common present anyway? Why can't he put a computational cell at each locus in spacetime (assumed to be quantised) and just have them communicate with their temporal / spatial neighbours? Physics being local indicates something like this is what occurs in the universe anyway, so -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invarianthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant local quantum field theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory with a Hermitian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operator Hamiltonianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics) must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I didn't say it was radical. The SE is linear which means the linear combination of any two solutions is also a solution. It's sufficient to preserve probability, but not necessary. Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? CPT symmetry is a consequence of Lorentz symmetry. But CP is violated...so. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_%28physics%29 Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant local quantum field theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory with a Hermitian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operatorHamiltonian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29 must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. That's what I mean by attacking a straw man. Fuchs and Peres et al, including Bohr only considered 'collapse of the wave function' as a change in one's information. Bohr said QM is not about reality, it's about what we can say about reality. Only later did people try to invent real collapse theories, e.g. Penrose, and while I don't consider any of them likely I wouldn't say they are almost certainly false. There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. That's as good a prejudice as every thing must be determined from the beginning. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Richard Oh, right! Thank you for letting me know. In that I won't worry my pretty little head about his wonderful theory. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invarianthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant local quantum field theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory with a Hermitian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operator Hamiltonianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29 must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. That's what I mean by attacking a straw man. Fuchs and Peres et al, including Bohr only considered 'collapse of the wave function' as a change in one's information. I agree Bohr was closer to Fuchs and Peres, but Heisenberg, von Neumann, Wigner, etc. all believed in collapse, and CI is still taught as the orthodox interpretation in most places. It's not exactly a straw man. To say the theory is only about our information seems like a kind of cop-out to me. We don't see other theories in science described as only speaking about the information that we can gain not about anything that real external to us. Why can't QM be a realist theory like everything else in science? Bohr said QM is not about reality, it's about what we can say about reality. Only later did people try to invent real collapse theories, e.g. Penrose, and while I don't consider any of them likely I wouldn't say they are almost certainly false. Let's say someone proposed a new theory to explain why when something falls into a black hole we can no longer see it, but it ignored that other theories already explain why we can't see things that fall into a black hole. Moreover, imagine that this theory, if true, would require faster than light influences, as well as violations in the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of mass energy. Would you say this theory was only unlikely? There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. That's as good a prejudice as every thing must be determined from the beginning. Now who is fighting straw men? (You always pretend this this is the primary, or only motivation for Everett) Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_%28physics%29 Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant local quantum field theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory with a Hermitian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operatorHamiltonian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29 must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. That's what I mean by attacking a straw man. Fuchs and Peres et al, including Bohr only considered 'collapse of the wave function' as a change in one's information. I agree Bohr was closer to Fuchs and Peres, but Heisenberg, von Neumann, Wigner, etc. all believed in collapse, and CI is still taught as the orthodox interpretation in most places. It's not exactly a straw man. To say the theory is only about our information seems like a kind of cop-out to me. We don't see other theories in science described as only speaking about the information that we can gain not about anything that real external to us. Why can't QM be a realist theory like everything else in science? I sort of see the opposite trend. More and more physicists are looking for an information based fundamental theory. Bohr said QM is not about reality, it's about what we can say about reality. Only later did people try to invent real collapse theories, e.g. Penrose, and while I don't consider any of them likely I wouldn't say they are almost certainly false. Let's say someone proposed a new theory to explain why when something falls into a black hole we can no longer see it, but it ignored that other theories already explain why we can't see things that fall into a black hole. Or how about a theory that it's both destroyed at the event horizon and also falls through to the singularity? Moreover, imagine that this theory, if true, would require faster than light influences, as well as violations in the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of mass energy. Would you say this theory was only unlikely? Are you claiming that Penrose's idea does all those things? There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. That's as good a prejudice as every thing must be determined from the beginning. Now who is fighting straw men? (You always pretend this this is the primary, or only motivation for Everett) I don't know about you, but Bruno has said he considers fundamental randomness to be completely unacceptable. What do you think about the idea that the whole course of the universe was set at that (near) singularity at the
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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 criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the problems of interpreting QM. A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw men built on naive interpretations of Bohr. Some are just assumptions, e.g that physics must be time reversible and linear. I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical assumption??? I think you might be thinking of unitary vs. non-unitary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics) Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? I agree, things like CPT symmetry, determinism, etc. aren't just assumptions, but underlie every other known physical law that is known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry The *CPT theorem* says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invarianthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_invariant local quantum field theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory with a Hermitian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-adjoint_operator Hamiltonianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29 must have CPT symmetry. Collapse of the wave function would be the only phenomenon in quantum mechanics that is non-unitary, non-linear, non-differentiable, and discontinuous. It would also be the only principle in physics that non-local, non-causal, non-deterministic, and violates special relativity. I can understand that Brent's ambivalence toward MWI, it may not be the final answer, but I think it is a good step in that direction. However, I am surprised that anyone well-versed in the known physics of today, could consider collapse as anything but a wild, unsupported, and almost-certainly-false conjecture. That's what I mean by attacking a straw man. Fuchs and Peres et al, including Bohr only considered 'collapse of the wave function' as a change in one's information. I agree Bohr was closer to Fuchs and Peres, but Heisenberg, von Neumann, Wigner, etc. all believed in collapse, and CI is still taught as the orthodox interpretation in most places. It's not exactly a straw man. To say the theory is only about our information seems like a kind of cop-out to me. We don't see other theories in science described as only speaking about the information that we can gain not about anything that real external to us. Why can't QM be a realist theory like everything else in science? 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. Bohr said QM is not about reality, it's about what we can say about reality. Only later did people try to invent real collapse theories, e.g. Penrose, and while I don't consider any of them likely I wouldn't say they are almost certainly false. Let's say someone proposed a new theory to explain why when something falls into a black hole we can no longer see it, but it ignored that other theories already explain why we can't see things that fall into a black hole. Or how about a theory that it's both destroyed at the event horizon and also falls through to the singularity? That's fine. Moreover, imagine that this theory, if true, would require faster than light influences, as well as violations in the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of mass energy. Would you say this theory was only unlikely? Are you claiming that Penrose's idea does all those things? No, it is only an example of the kind of thing collapse represents. An extraneous theory, having no motivation and which contradicts core ideas and principals across physics. There is so much well-established physics that must be given up; for apparently no other reason than the ontological prejudice some harbor for the idea that the universe is no bigger than we previously thought. That's as good a prejudice as every thing must be determined from the beginning. Now who is fighting straw men? (You always pretend this this is the primary, or only motivation for Everett) I don't know about you, but Bruno has said he considers fundamental randomness to be completely unacceptable. So that makes collapse 1 of about 10 other serious problems with it.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
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? Clearly we don't remain (or aren't in) just a single possible ((future) history). I mean multiverse. How does it get started? There's just this one pure ray in Hilbert space - what does it mean for it to get projected onto different subspaces? The Wheeler-Dewitt equation is famously timeless, so it's not clear why anything happens at all. Or do you hypothesize an eternal past? 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, 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. Of course in a block universe picture it comes from the future. But most ideas are more conservative than that; they're more like everythingism. Information in QM can be negative as well as positive. If negative information crosses the Hubble event horizon it leaves positive information behind. As my friend Yonatan Fishman put it, The universe is just nothing - rearranged. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
