Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


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..

2014-01-02 Thread Pierz
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

2014-01-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
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

2014-01-02 Thread Alberto G. Corona
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

2014-01-02 Thread Telmo Menezes
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


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?

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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?

2014-01-02 Thread John Clark
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Russell Standish
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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 ?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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?

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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

2014-01-02 Thread Chris de Morsella
 

 

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..

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread John Clark
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@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.


Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Dear Stephen,

 On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:



I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
 and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
 us a 3p.



 That's for woman and engineers. The doer.


Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually
interested in the possibility of artificial intelligence as a reality, so
these questions are not just an intellectual exercise.





 It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two
 different right brains ever agreeing.


So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth. As I see things, we can
derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that
which is incontrovertible for all possible entities.
 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite
resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.






 Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p,
 just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.



Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!




 But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs
 by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given
 by Theaetetus reappears!.

 Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and
 the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.


Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other
than your canonical? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.





 With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on
 that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is
 ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection,
 but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science
 gives them on a plateau.


 I worry that science here has become scientism. 





 Bruno











 On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Bruno,

   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?



 OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

 But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
 explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

 Bruno






 If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


 This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
 computations.





  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
 is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.


 Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you
 an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
 substitution?

 Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present.


 It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
 search, using this or that theories.





  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
 moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
 reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
 block time, no MW, etc.


 In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
 be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

 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 

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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?

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Edgar L. Owen
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-02 Thread Richard Ruquist
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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..

2014-01-02 Thread LizR
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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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?

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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?

2014-01-02 Thread meekerdb

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.