Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[John M]

Dear Hal,
here are some stupid remarks (I call them stupid, because - they really
are - I cannot follow the theoretical logic of your discussion with Bruno,
and base my remarks on "feeling" while reading your text - which is not the
most "scientific" way of dicussion. Nevertheless I submit them FYI: I quote
and reply below.- Original Message -
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


 (Hal:  >   Bruno  >>  JM: blank lines)
> Hi Bruno:
>
>
> In the following call an individual [Ai,Dj] pair logic system Ln where
"i",
> "j", and "n" can go from 1 to an uncountable infinity and all possible
> [Ai,D,j] pairings are considered.
What if i or j are '0'? do you take it out from 'all possible,' if the
"pair" is
a "single logic item?
(That would be no valid description of Worlds? restrictions on 'valid'?)
In Nothing both are '0', (I suppose). Is this an exception from your model?
BTW All and Nothing cannot have a model in the usual sense. (Common sense,
that is). I call a 'model' an informational (topical, etc.) restricted view.
Such possibility would violate the impossibility of 0 = 1 (- in the
consistency).
> 
>
> I see no reason to exclude the Ln which have such an Ai from being a valid
> description of a World.  It is just an explicit expression of
> incompleteness rather than an implicit one.   Thus there could be two
> subsets of Ai in W.
I deny the argument "I see no reason to exclude..." (Nescio non est
argumentum).
Such as: "this is the only way it can be..." is appealing to ignorance of
the other ways.
>.
> Thus induction would fail for all worlds in W because the logical
> foundation for all worlds would be constantly shifting from one Ln to
> another.
>
> >Concerning many theories, to say that a proposition
> >(or a set of propositions) A is logically possible
> >is the same as saying that A is consistent (i.e you
> >cannot derive 0 = 1 from it),
No matter what, the unlimited Multiverse cannot be based on a possibility
WITHIN  "A N Y "
of the logical systems derivable in our mind. Our descriptive talent can
have limits but not the
W. Even the 0=1 impossibility postulate is human logic,  see above my Latin
phrase.
>
> When talking of descriptions of worlds - in such a venue consistency would
> only be applicable to individual states [if at all] and not to successions
> of states.  The question then is can the All [which contains W] contain
> self inconsistent states such as one with a correctly and completely
> assembled two wheeled tricycle or a cat that is both alive and dead or the
> same thing having two valid sets of coordinates?  Now the All is complete
> so it is internally inconsistent so I see no way to argue against the
> presence of such states founded on inconsistent Ai.

That sounds better, (including the i=0 above case as well?)
>
> >  or saying that A has a
> >model (a reality, a mathematical structure) satisfying it.
Human logic again. Is A modeled with the unmodelable ALL or Nothing?
>
> It seems that the idea that mathematical structures are actually
consistent
> is nice but lacks any basis.
!
>
> To help place my model in context with the above:
>
> A core idea is the definitional pair relationship.  The [All,Nothing] pair
> is unique in being inherently unavoidable but still summing to no
> information.  Thus it has no initiation and no end.
Amen
>
> Another core idea is: Is there a meaningful question the Nothing must
> resolve?   The answer to this is: Yes there is:  The Nothing either
> continues [persists], or it does not.   The answer must be inherent in the
> information within the Nothing but there is none in there by
> definition.  Therefore the Nothing is incomplete - it can not resolve any
> meaningful question.  But in this case it must do so.  The only reservoir
> of information is the All.   Therefore it must breach the barrier between
> itself and the All.  In doing so it losses contact with what it was [an Ln
> shift] and becomes an evolving [including successive Ln shifts] - a
> multiverse - within the All.
And so on...The 'partners of yours (All & Nothing) get a task, MUST DO, and
W H Y ?
Who gave your idea the power to force them do anything? if they leave YOUR
questions
unresolved, so what? Are you sure that your supposition is in order for
THEM?  Your
superior-like treatment is like a boss's order upon his ideas. I see an
aberration from the
(objective) description style here. I would forget about the imperative.
>
> Since the [All,Nothing] is as above an
> unavoidable definitional pair a "new" Nothing simultaneously replaces the
> old one.  The cycle repeats. The cycle always was and always will be and
> the All contains an infinite number of these Somethings all evolving
> towards completeness.
Whatever can be modeled is incomplete. Maximum model = ALL, which is NO
model.
Completeness as I read it is defined accor

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[Hal Ruhl]

Hi Bruno:
I assume your theory is intended to give the range of descriptions of worlds.
The All in my model contains - well - ALL so it includes systems to which 
Godel's theorem applies.

Your theory has problems for me.
What is truth?
What is a sentence?
What is arithmetical?
As Stephen Paul King asked: How is truth resolved for a given sentence?
Why the down select re descriptions vs the All.
How is the set of such sentences known to be consistent?
To answer these questions it seems necessary to inject information into 
your theory beyond what may already be there - the sentences - and where 
did all that info come from and why allow any in a base level system for 
worlds?

Yours
Hal
At 08:03 AM 12/3/2004, you wrote:
At 15:49 01/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
the All is internally inconsistent since it is complete.
I have a counter-example: take the following theory: All
true arithmetical sentences. This is complete and yet consistent.
Gödel's theorem applies only on axiomatizable (or mechanically
generable) theory.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Fw: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Bruno,
   How is the "trueness" of members of this "theory" (of all "true
arithmetical sentences) given? By fiat?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


At 15:49 01/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
the All is internally inconsistent since it is complete.
I have a counter-example: take the following theory: All
true arithmetical sentences. This is complete and yet consistent.
Gödel's theorem applies only on axiomatizable (or mechanically
generable) theory.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

[Bruno Marchal]

At 15:49 01/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
the All is internally inconsistent since it is complete.
I have a counter-example: take the following theory: All
true arithmetical sentences. This is complete and yet consistent.
Gödel's theorem applies only on axiomatizable (or mechanically
generable) theory.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Quantum Theory from Quantum Gravity

[Doriano Brogioli]

As many other theories about quantum mechanics, also this one is based
on Nelson's idea of quantum mechanical effects in classical mechanics.
Unfortunately, Nelson's idea cannot explain all the quantum mechanical
effects observed in nature. In order to apply Nelson's approach, we need
that the velocity field is v=dS(x,t)/dx. This condition means that all
the interference effects cannot be explained by Nelson's idea. By the
way, it's worth noting that all the non-local effects of quantum
mechanics are basically interference phenomena, so Nelson's idea
reproduces only a "lesser quantum mechanics", that is local.
The same problem holds for this new paper.
A polemic consideration. If one understood the so called "many worlds
interpretation", that is the Everett interpretation of quantum
mechanics, he should be able to understand that the "lesser quantum
mechanics" describes only a single world. The two ideas, or
interpretations, cannot hold together!
Finally, it's time to note that many explanation of quantum mechanics in
terms of statistical dynamics have been proposed, but none of them have
been able to explain any experiment about quantum mechanics. Many people
(including G. Parisi, for example) proposed a similarity between quantum
field theory and classical statistical mechanics, but there's alwais a
factor "i" that is wrong. There's a huge difference between diffusion
equation and Schroedinger equation, though they differ only by a factor
"i". I'm a supporter of many worlds theories, and I think that there are
many experimental evidences of the real existence of different wave
packets in interference experiments. This is in contrast with the
"lesser quantum mechanics", where interference is not possible.
Best regards,
Doriano Brogioli

Saibal Mitra wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311059
 
 
*Authors:* Fotini Markopoulou 
, Lee 
Smolin 

We provide a mechanism by which, from a background independent model
with no quantum mechanics, quantum theory arises in the same limit
in which spatial properties appear. Starting with an arbitrary
abstract graph as the microscopic model of spacetime, our ansatz is
that the microscopic dynamics can be chosen so that 1) the model has
a low low energy limit which reproduces the non-relativistic
classical dynamics of a system of N particles in flat spacetime, 2)
there is a minimum length, and 3) some of the particles are in a
thermal bath or otherwise evolve stochastically. We then construct
simple functions of the degrees of freedom of the theory and show
that their probability distributions evolve according to the
Schroedinger equation. The non-local hidden variables required to
satisfy the conditions of Bell's theorem are the links in the
fundamental graph that connect nodes adjacent in the graph but
distant in the approximate metric of the low energy limit. In the
presence of these links, distant stochastic fluctuations are
transferred into universal quantum fluctuations. 

 
 
--
Defeat Spammers by launching DDOS attacks on Spam-Websites: 
http://makelovenotspam.com/intl