Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, No, please carefully read my new topic post Another shot at how spacetime emerges from quantum events where I explain this process in detail. You will see why it doesn't lead to MW but instead to many fragmentary spacetimes (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. What do you mean by computational space? What is it? Bruno 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.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
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem 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.
I am not sure Wheeler has ever believe this. He seem to have come back
to the MWI, which provides a realist account of his participatory
interpretation.
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.
But how the other terms vanish?
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.
Even if it is, the question is not just the arithmetical possibility
(consistency), but it has to be statistically reasonable.
Anyway, if comp is correct, there is no choice. Physics becomes
independent of the basic ontology or theory. Deriving physics from a
clearly non physical TOE (like arithmetic) ensures the testability of
the comp theory.
Bruno
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
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 02 Jan 2014, at 18:50, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
Great! An amazing post! You seem to 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..
The unary intersection of the empty set is the collection or class of
all sets.
a^0 = 1 is the algebraic version of the unary on 0 inputs is true.
a^0 can be seen also as the set of functions from { } to a, and there
is one (the empty function).
Those are just examples of getting 1, or the whole, from nothing.
It is not that deep ...
Bruno
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
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 02 Jan 2014, at 19:07, Jason Resch wrote: There are other reasons to prefer it [MWI] besides it's answer to the measurement problem without magical observers, including: - Fewer assumptions Which is nice, because the SWE+collapse is not even consistent, as it never explains why QM is false on observers. - 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 Which is nice, as it is covariant, and makes QM usable in cosmology, as it *is* actually used today. - 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) QM without MWI is QM + ad hoc instrumentalist magic. You forget one nice point with MWI. It confirms computationalism (which is the least magical theory of mind). In fact MWI confirms COMP + NON-solipsism, as it shows the existence of a first person plural: the contagion of superposition ensures that the entire population of communicating observers are duplicated/ multiplied, and that gives the first person plural. The MWI confirms also Einstein's intuition on QM: God does not play with dice, and there are no spooky actions at a distance. 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: What are wavefunctions?
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:06, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: The wave function says everything there is to be said about how something is right now. The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right now, the 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. As many pointed out, Everett's theory uses this and that point is capital to understand comp generalization of it. You have not answered my last posts. I don't see how you can make sense of Everett without the 1p/3p distinction, still less computationalism, indeed. 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. 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote: If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable. I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable. 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 ... The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’) Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell. Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big metaphysical surprises. Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least in much of human history). OK. Best, 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: What are wavefunctions?
Maybe Wheeler-deWitt is right. Maybe nothing *does* happen. Maybe it only appears to. Just a thought. A lot of theories are timeless, in some sense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear Stephen, On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental and then 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. IF AI is a reality, that would be an incentive for comp. But comp is stronger that strong AI. machine can think does not imply that only machine can think, so they might think, and we could still be non- machine. Logically. Psychologically, if strong AI is true, it is doubtful we are not machines, as we have no evidences for that at all. 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. That makes truth dependent on us. But truth, especially the transcendental, *is* supposed to be independent of us, beyond us, etc. All you need for comp is the belief in 17 is prime, or the machine i stop after k step on input j, etc. 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. They exists in the arithmetical Platonia. That's a fact. You can't ignore it. 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! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? 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. He is an expert in knot theory. G and G* are just advanced form of his Eigenforms. It is math, we can change the canonical, because the canonical is given by theorems, notably on those 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. Why? That's seems to me to be a quite unfair gratuitous remark. Nobody asks anyone to believe in comp, nor even in 17 is prime (although you are asked this for the sake of the argument). It is proved that if comp is correct, then the 1p and knowers are recovered by the most common definition of knowledge. It is not scientism, it is reasoning in an hypothetical context. To confuse reasoning and scientism is bad philosophy, imo. 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the outside time experience. Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also this... In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an I, but instead a not-I. Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_doors_of_perception#Synopsis (Maybe this is perceiving the reality of the Wheeler-deWitt equation!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 03 Jan 2014, at 07:55, Jason Resch wrote: I sort of see the opposite trend. More and more physicists are looking for an information based fundamental theory. But where is the information coming from? If no where or nothing, this is just a form of idealism. Except that physicists wanting information being fundamental still insist, with Landauer, that information is physical (indeed quantum one). This just makes no sense when we assume that we are machine (even quantum one), and seems quite ad hoc (as you say: where does that information comes from?). The real problem of the MWI is not in the many, but in the notion of world which is never defined. Computationalism offers somehow a compromise between Bohr-Pauli-Fuchs and Everett: as there is no worlds a priori, only many dream/local-knowledge. All there is just 0 and the successors, and the only laws needed to be assumed are addition and multiplication. The coupling consciousness/realities is emergent from the possible 1p that computationalism attach to person supported by computations. Anything else require that the observers' bodies are not Turing emulable. 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: What are wavefunctions?
On 03 Jan 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations about it, not so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the problems it claims to - which implies 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??? Linearity bears on the waves or solution of the SWE. Probabilities are the square of the wave, and are not linear. The problem comes from that, but that aspect of the problem is more or less solved by Gleason theorem, or even good approximations of it, like in the (unknown) very old work by Paulette Destouches-Février (a french and early serious philosopher of QM). Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all? We cannot observed something like time reversibility. We can only inferred it from a finite number of observations, and then assume a theory which either assumes it at the start, or explains it from other assumptions, or perhaps refute it. We can observe facts, not theories. I guess you were just in the hyperquick mode of talk :) 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 03 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Richard Ruquist wrote: Liz, Edgar has a problem with your gender as is well known on other lists. Edgar did not answer any of my questions too. I guess he has enough work answering Jason. I don't know what he means by computational space, nor if anything related to computer is used in his approach. His theory is obviously (for those who get the UDA at least) non computationalist, but then what is his computational space? Bruno 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. 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply... Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon. 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. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? Richard Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 17:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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.
I am not sure Wheeler has ever believe this. He seem to have come back to
the MWI, which provides a realist account of his participatory
interpretation.
It seems to me that ItBit is an empirically based theory.
If Wheeler did not think it was empirically correct
he never would have proposed it.
ItBit can be consistent with MWI
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.
But how the other terms vanish?
The terms only vanish in between observation.
During observation the terms reappear
and are dependent on the question each observer asks .
In a controlled experiment all observers ask the same question
and get the same response, which reveals the inherent quantum probabilities,
even in an MWI multiverse. If every observer asks the same question,
spacetime does not split.
Or does it?
Richard
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.
Even if it is, the question is not just the arithmetical possibility
(consistency), but it has to be statistically reasonable.
Anyway, if comp is correct, there is no choice. Physics becomes
independent of the basic ontology or theory. Deriving physics from a
clearly non physical TOE (like arithmetic) ensures the testability of the
comp theory.
Bruno
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
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Liz, The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature works... Edgar On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Another thing I've been intending to ask Edgar, but it seems i can't now, because he's refusing to reply to any of my posts... Why does 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..
Liz, This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to mind. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript: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..
Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Jason, You may be missing the fact that the acceleration of the space traveller is what causes the twin paradox. I would say it is not so much the acceleration that explains the paradox, but the fact that no matter how you rotate the paths, you always see a kink in the path Pam takes. May I venture to suggest this is the same thing :-) That's not exactly wrong - but it tends to make it confusing. It's like saying a road from A to B is longer than as-the-crow-flies because of its curves. Yeah, that's true; but if you want to calculate how much longer you see that the rate of excess distance is proportional to the first integral of the curvature and so the total excess is the second integral of the curvature - which is just the distance. So it boils down to unstraight lines are longer than straight lines. All the specific details of acceleration get integrated out so it's easy to see that a broken line (infinite accelerations) is just longer. Or in spacetime, unstraight worldlines are shorter than straight ones. To phrase it in terms of acceleration misleads people into thinking about the stressful effects of acceleration and how that could affect a clock,... I bow to your superior knowledge. I wasn't thinking about the aging effects of acceleration (as in the Heinlein story where they have to fly to Pluto at 3G) but just the fact that the course changes are the only way the twin paradox can be enacted - that is to say, it's what breaks the symmetry that otherwise exists between one ref frame's measurements and another's. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: What do you think about the idea that the whole course of the universe was set at that (near) singularity at the beginning of the universe? What do you mean by universe? Clearly we don't remain (or aren't in) just a single possible ((future) history). I mean multiverse. How does it get started? I believe in block time, so there is no start or end. I think there is a collection of states and stable patterns that exist and perceive, within even larger stable patterns. There's just this one pure ray in Hilbert space - what does it mean for it to get projected onto different subspaces? Is it wrong to say something to the effect of all solutions to the Shrodinger equation are satisfied? The Wheeler-Dewitt equation is famously timeless, so it's not clear why anything happens at all. Or do you hypothesize an eternal past? Wheeler-Dewitt showed what Einstein and Feynman with his diagrams suspected, and what I think many thought experiments can help show, that time, as something that changes what exists, does not exist. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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-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 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..
(I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space it is. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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-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-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
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 03 Jan 2014, at 15:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to mind. Gauss said the same on Noether, and then add: --but that one is probably not really a woman (very macho remark, of course) Bruno Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:24:29 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 16:22, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 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. 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..
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space it is. There are equal amounts of acceleration in both cases: 4 minutes worth. What there is not equal amounts of is relativistic time dilation, which is what explains the bulk of the age difference in the Sam-Pam case. The time dilation and slowed ageing of Pam is due to her high speed. She does not regain those lost years when she comes to a stop. So your statement that all the effects of SR vanish once they are back in the same frame is false. True, they are no longer time dilated or length contracted relative to each other, but they are still different in age because of it. Jason Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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-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
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Gabriel, See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time. Best, Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, 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 -- 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..
Hi Edgar, That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out. However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give direct answers to the following logical questions. A direct (non-evasive) answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of true or false for each question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond that if you think the explanation is helpful. An answer which excludes picking either true or false for each question independently is evasive. I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing. When I get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean and will be able to move on to deeper questions. 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference frame: True or False? 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference frames: True or False? 3. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events at the same point in space: True or False? -Gabe On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Gabriel, See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this works and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time. Best, Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. -Gabe On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: There is no FTL in MWI. If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue because it does not agree with experiment, and if something doesn't agree with experiment that's the end of the story, it has to go. 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: snip Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects. If the first person view is the view of a computation, then 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. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one). and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. This is unclear. What do you mean? Ah, you explain below. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp Dt) , know (Bp p), observe (Bp Dt p), feel (Bp Dt p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations. You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a
Re: What are wavefunctions?
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: There is no FTL in MWI. If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue because it does not agree with experiment, and if something doesn't agree with experiment that's the end of the story, it has to go. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#epr http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local And we know the authority of Liar Clark... even in front of his own lies, he will continue till the universe froze to hell to deny it... Because Liar Clark is able to post email on the internet but he is unable to just use google to see that he talks shit every day I'll help you: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1pws=0q=Is+MWI+a+local+theory 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: What are wavefunctions?
Quintin, you beat me to it, I had http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local on my clip board when I saw your message appear. :-) Jason On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: There is no FTL in MWI. If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue because it does not agree with experiment, and if something doesn't agree with experiment that's the end of the story, it has to go. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#epr http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local And we know the authority of Liar Clark... even in front of his own lies, he will continue till the universe froze to hell to deny it... Because Liar Clark is able to post email on the internet but he is unable to just use google to see that he talks shit every day I'll help you: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1pws=0q=Is+MWI+a+local+theory 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. -- 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.
Putting it all together
https://24.media.tumblr.com/6b06d8de192011e7a0e1179d34958785/tumblr_myu2nxlpcz1qeenqko1_500.jpg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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.
Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: That old Newtonian time still exists and is what I call Present moment P-time. It just isn't being measured by clocks. So Newtonian time exists but it doesn't do anything. And that is a pretty good definition of a useless idea. 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: snip Okay, and I can agree with this in some 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. Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences. Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all. I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view. Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery. That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an experience cannot make any sense, even in an hallucination, yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described. Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution). So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but, like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further explorations ... Bruno, From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently dynamic From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one). and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp. This is unclear. What do you mean? Ah, you explain below. That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no computations happening. It's a static block universe. Is that possible? The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp Dt) , know (Bp p), observe (Bp Dt p), feel (Bp Dt p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations. You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy*
Re: Putting it all together
Looks like a heirarchical Many World h-MW model to me. I conjecture that Wheeler's ItBit empirical quantum model is consistent with the h-MW model via ER=EPR tunneling. Richard On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: https://24.media.tumblr.com/6b06d8de192011e7a0e1179d34958785/tumblr_myu2nxlpcz1qeenqko1_500.jpg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: There is no FTL in MWI. If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue because it does not agree with experiment, and if something doesn't agree with experiment that's the end of the story, it has to go. John, According to Wheeler's empirical quantum model, (where the properties of a particle vanish in between observations and once again observed respond to the binary question asked by the observers) in a controlled scientific experiment all of the observers ask the same question and thereby the experimental results pertain to a single spacetime. MWI experiments require that some observers ask different questions and thereby obtain multiple spacetimes. Next step is to design an experiment that compares all observers asking the same question to some of them asking different questions. Is that conceivable? Richard 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. -- 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.
The One
Dear Bruno, I do not understand something. Your idea seems to me to be a very sophisticated and yat sneaky way of reintroducing Newton/Laplacean absolute time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-established Harmony. I recall reading how much Einstein himself loved the idea and was loath to give it up, thus motivating his quest for a classical grand unified field theory. Physics has moved on... You recently wrote: The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers). That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point against this). Let me try to clarify how I am confused by this claim. How many different versions of the integers exist? AFAIK, there can be only One and it is this *One* that acts as the time (maybe) in your argument for all other strings of integers. Are the strings distorted and/or incomplete shadows of the One? Are we permitted to use the allegory of the cave here? :-) How many shadows are there and how are they distinguished from each other such that the notion of a computation is not lost? In my work I have found that theoreticians in computer science completely take for granted that a computation is a process that can only occur in the absence of randomness. Imagine if the atoms making up the CPU of your computer where to suddenly start changing their positions and states due to outside interactions in a random/uncontrolled way? No computation would occur! In fact, this is the situation that we find when, for instance, the cooler fan fails and the CPU overheats. My point here is that the string of states that is a von Neumann computation is something that has to be separable and/or isolated to be able to be said to occur or -to use the Platonic metaphor- exist. So, what exactly is separating the strings of integers from each other and the One, such that we can coherently discuss them as actually being computations and not just representations of computations? -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King -- 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: Putting it all together
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. On Friday, January 3, 2014 2:06:26 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Looks like a heirarchical Many World h-MW model to me. I conjecture that Wheeler's ItBit empirical quantum model is consistent with the h-MW model via ER=EPR tunneling. Richard On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: https://24.media.tumblr.com/6b06d8de192011e7a0e1179d34958785/tumblr_myu2nxlpcz1qeenqko1_500.jpg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? 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
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. 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: Putting it all together
It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity-scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting.http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from 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: Putting it all together
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity -scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical experiment where the observers ask different questions and get results that differ from quantum mechanics. They had the launch observers asking different questions whereas I suggested that the detection observers ask different questions. Their results are encouraging to advocates of MWI. Richard -- 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations about the MWI?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Right. Edgar is just wrong. The same applies to the gravitational field. The time dilatation is purely a geometrical effect. Lewis Carroll Epstein's little book, Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation and examples. 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: Putting it all together
On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity -scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical experiment where the observers ask different questions and get results that differ from quantum mechanics. They had the launch observers asking different questions whereas I suggested that the detection observers ask different questions. Their results are encouraging to advocates of MWI. In what way? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 4 January 2014 00:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: We cannot observed something like time reversibility. We can only inferred it from a finite number of observations, and then assume a theory which either assumes it at the start, or explains it from other assumptions, or perhaps refute it. We can observe facts, not theories. I guess you were just in the hyperquick mode of talk :) Hmm. Weeell, there are inferences involved, of course, but I'm not sure what you mean by not observe. We observe emission and absorption spectra, for example, and we deduce that atoms emit and absorb photons - but we are only inferring from observation. But we are inferring all the time, e.g. we assume the spectra we observe are real and not implanted in our minds by malevolent scientists keeping our brains in vats. At that level, of course, everything is inference, but... Emission and absorption spectra indicate that the process of an atom absorbing a photon and emitting one are time symmetric processes. Kinetic theory explains the properties of gases by assuming that they engage in time-symmetric collisions (once they reach thermal equilibrium). The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric and appear to accord very well with observation (modulo dissipative processes and the existence of an entropy gradient, hypothetically due to boundary conditions on the universe). I agree that from a philosophy of science viewpoint we have to make caveats, but they apply to everything, not just this one feature of physics! -- 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: Putting it all together
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity -scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical experiment where the observers ask different questions and get results that differ from quantum mechanics. They had the launch observers asking different questions whereas I suggested that the detection observers ask different questions. Their results are encouraging to advocates of MWI. In what way? Liz, I presume you mean how they prepared the states, which is equivalent to an observer asking a question. Two systems are created independently and exist is |0 |+ and |+ and |0 respectively. They are brought together and measured obtaining 4 possible states, one of which will for significant time measure zero which is a contradiction of quantum mechanics but possibly just what you would expect for an MWI multiverse. Richard -- 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..
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Right. Edgar is just wrong. The same applies to the gravitational field. The time dilatation is purely a geometrical effect. Lewis Carroll Epstein's little book, Relativity Visualized provides a nice explanation and examples. Brent, I would have thought that the effect of the gravitational field ( equating acceleration and deceleration to gravity) is just like its effect on GPS system and to my knowledge is not geometrical 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 1/3/2014 8:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I like that! I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as opposed to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the following argument re present time easier to understand. Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and their identical clock times correlate to this. No, that doesn't follow at all. Running at the same rate doesn't mean at the same time. My watch runs at the same rate as my grandfathers - but not at the same time. All you can conclude is that, by exchanging signals Pam and Sam can set their clocks to *the same time in their frame* and by symmetry they will run at the same rate. Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. Again clock time correlates with present moment time... First, they are in relative motion in spacetime. Second, there is no present moment. Pam and Sam are at different locations, so even aside from gravitational effects, their agreement on how to set their clocks is arbitrary, it holds only in their frame, and another observer moving relative to them will see their clocks as NOT reading the same time even when their gravity fields were the same. This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, They are actually the same effect, except in GR the path lengths are measured over a non-flat geometry. See Epstein's book Relativity Visualized. and GR effects are absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment. An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops, whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the acceleration stops. The effect on *rate* stops, but the integrated effect of the rate having been different over some duration is real. That's why the twins are different ages when they re-unite. This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what is going on particularly with respect to the common present moment. You common present moment is just an arbitrary inertial frame choice which you use to label events with a t-value. It's just coordinate time. So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a common present moment, There is a whole range of moments which will be at the same coordinate time depending on what inertial frame is chosen to define coordinates. but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on their GR relativistic time differences There was no gravity in my diagrams. and thus knowing which of their clock times corresponded to the same present moment was easy. No, there is the same arbitrariness of now in your GR example. You just chose to privilege the frame in which both are at rest (in space). In any other inertial frame their clocks will still be seen to run at the same rate, but they will no longer be set to the same time. With SR, equal and opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock times to the same present moment. Sure it is, when they are at the same event. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of SR clock time which doesn't falsify a
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
But it does matter how long you coast between accelerating away from Earth and the braking maneuver in which you accelerate back toward Earth. If you don't coast at all there is only a small effect. If you wait a long time, 10yrs, there is a big effect - which is easily seen in terms of the difference in length of the world lines in Minkowski space. Brent On 1/3/2014 8:13 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Come on Jason. Of course not. You have to have EQUAL amounts of acceleration to produce the same effect. But doesn't matter where in space it is. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:24:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: Jason, If the acceleration is the same, the slowing of clock time will be the same... Doesn't matter where it is. Or equivalently (by the principle of equivalence) it could be standing 'still' in a strong gravitational field. Edgar Okay but this is certainly not what happens. If you spent 4 minutes accelerating and came back, there would not be a 4 year age difference when Pam returned. Jason On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:06:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? Jason It is true the effects can also be analyzed just by spacetime paths as others have suggested, but it is actually the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field which is in effect an acceleration) which actually physically produces the clock time differences when the twins meet up again. Edgar On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:27:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 3 January 2014 17:30, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2014 8:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 January 2014 15:52, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR liz...@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
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 4 January 2014 03:06, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, The common present moment is not something I need. It's the way nature works... We don't know how nature works, we only have theories. You have a theory about how nature works. Why does your theory need a common present moment? What does the concept achieve? Why is it necessary within the theory? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 4 January 2014 03:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to mind. Yes she's one of my heroes, along with Lisa Randall and Alice in Wonderland. So are you saying that from you will from now on answer questions without trying to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case just make you look like a complete dork) ? In that case I will accept your implied apology, and carry on asking questions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 4 January 2014 04:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Lliz, Brent and Jason, Actually Liz is correct here, by GR it is the acceleration. That is the physical cause of the clock time differences of the twins. In my experiment, lets say the acceleration lats for a total of 4 minutes: one minute to accelerate up to 0.8 c, one minute to slow down at Proxima Centauri, one minute to accelerate back up to 0.8 c toward Earth, and a final minute to accelerate down to back at Earth. If the accelerations alone account for the clock discrepancies, then there would be no need to go to Proxima Centauri at all. Pam could spend 4 minutes whizzing around the solar system and get in all the same accelerations. Is this what you are saying? It isn't what *I* was saying. My point - also made (no doubt better) by Brent - was simply that there is no reference frame in which Pam's path through space-time can be made shorter than Sam's, and this is only possible *because of *the accelerations. The accelerations themselves don't cause the ageing - we could assume they're 1G and last through the entire trip, and that would give (more or less) the same result with the clocks, though the calculations would be a bit harder. If we assume that both Pam and Sam experience the same acceleration throughout, the equivalence principle means they age at the same rate due to the acceleration alone. However, and this is the important point, the acceleration causes Pam's path through space-time to be bent. For our own convenience we simplify the calculations by assuming the acceleration period is negligible. (So we could perhaps assume Pam is in a very, very robust space ship, and stuck inside a Larry Niven style stasis field for a few minutes of million-G acceleration. Or maybe she's an AI, or...) It's just geometry - in all ref frames, Pam's path traces two sides of a triangle and Sam's traces the third side. You can't have a triangle in which two sides are shorter than the third side, and the clock discrepancy is due to the length of the paths through space-time - the shorter path experiences the longer time (the longer path trades space for time). It isn't rocket science! :-) -- 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..
Sorry I got a bit heated and didn't check my grammar, I meant to say: So are you saying that from now on you will answer questions without trying to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case just make you look like a complete dork) ? On 4 January 2014 10:39, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 January 2014 03:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, This is of course complete nonsense I have immense respect for many female scientists, thinkers and artists. Emmy Noether is one who comes to mind. Yes she's one of my heroes, along with Lisa Randall and Alice in Wonderland. So are you saying that from you will from now on answer questions without trying to analyse the motives of the person asking them, as you have done previously, and without adding the patronising comments? (which in any case just make you look like a complete dork) ? In that case I will accept your implied apology, and carry on asking questions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
2014/1/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: There is no FTL in MWI. If you say so. And now that we know on the authority of Quentin Anciaux that MWI is local and because we already knew that MWI is a realistic theory we can conclude with absolute confidence that MWI is untrue because it does not agree with experiment, and if something doesn't agree with experiment that's the end of the story, it has to go. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#epr http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#local I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good discussion of MWI The MWI exhibits some kind of nonlocality: world is a nonlocal concept, but it avoids action at a distance and, therefore, it is not in conflict with the relativistic quantum mechanics; see discussions of nonlocality in Vaidman 1994 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Vai94, Tipler 2000 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Tip00, Bacciagaluppi 2002 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Bac02, and Hemmo and Pitowsky 2001 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Hem01. Although the issues of (non)locality are most transparent in the Schrödinger representation, an additional insight can be gained through recent analysis in the framework of the Heisenberg representation, see Deutsch and Hayden 2000 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Deu00, Rubin 2001 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Rub01, and Deutsch 2001 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Deu01. The most celebrated example of nonlocality was given by Bell 1964 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Bel64 in the context of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/. However, in the framework of the MWI, Bell's argument cannot get off the ground because it requires a predetermined single outcome of a quantum experiment. == It also discusses the multiple-minds interpretation, which seems to be a more metaphysically extravagant version of Fuchs subjective Bayesian interpretation. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 4 January 2014 04:31, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote: (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.) The P-time notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space. Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday party The P-time notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp. The P-time notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true in other other reference frames. It is NOT the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true. So there's a direct contradiction. And P-time falls on the wrong side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of experimental work in physics. Very nicely summarised. Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between two events in the same location. If that pans out empirically, then the P-time notion won't even have the appearance of being a local approximation to the truth. Now that really IS fascinating! (PS Bruno may even know one of those people - Ognyan Oreshkov) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog? A mouse? 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.
For Edgar - Unanswered question time.
Our first topic is the relativity of simultaneity. I've asked about this, Jason has, Gabriel has. Probably Brent and Bruno and a few others have, too (maybe I should have taken notes). So far the answers have been a bit vague, so I'd like to get something more precise. To start with, I'd like definitive answers to Gabriel's 3 questions. Could you please just give true or false answers? Thank you. 1. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference frame: True or False? 2. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference frames: True or False? 3. According to your P-time notion, there is some uniquely true order of events at the same point in space: True or False? -- 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
I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent! (...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :) On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog? A mouse? 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. -- 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: Putting it all together
Hmm. Intriguing. The thing is, everyone tells me an interpretation can't affect QM itself .oh, I'm going to have to read the darn paper, aren't I?! (Whether it will make a scintilla of sense to my brain (at least in some branches of the multiverse) is another question, of course...) On 4 January 2014 10:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity -scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical experiment where the observers ask different questions and get results that differ from quantum mechanics. They had the launch observers asking different questions whereas I suggested that the detection observers ask different questions. Their results are encouraging to advocates of MWI. In what way? Liz, I presume you mean how they prepared the states, which is equivalent to an observer asking a question. Two systems are created independently and exist is |0 |+ and |+ and |0 respectively. They are brought together and measured obtaining 4 possible states, one of which will for significant time measure zero which is a contradiction of quantum mechanics but possibly just what you would expect for an MWI multiverse. Richard -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. 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: Putting it all together
Well the abstract's nice and clear, at least - they attempt to show that quantum states are not merely information structures relating to some (unknown) underlynig reality. Presumably that indicates that they *are* the reality.I will read on. On 4 January 2014 11:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm. Intriguing. The thing is, everyone tells me an interpretation can't affect QM itself .oh, I'm going to have to read the darn paper, aren't I?! (Whether it will make a scintilla of sense to my brain (at least in some branches of the multiverse) is another question, of course...) On 4 January 2014 10:12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 January 2014 09:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: It's not many worlds, it's a Uni_ that is _versing itself. UNIty in diVERSity -scerir BTW, did somebody read this paper? It seems interesting. http://arxiv.org/abs/.3328 Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf PBR pose the hypothetical experiment where the observers ask different questions and get results that differ from quantum mechanics. They had the launch observers asking different questions whereas I suggested that the detection observers ask different questions. Their results are encouraging to advocates of MWI. In what way? Liz, I presume you mean how they prepared the states, which is equivalent to an observer asking a question. Two systems are created independently and exist is |0 |+ and |+ and |0 respectively. They are brought together and measured obtaining 4 possible states, one of which will for significant time measure zero which is a contradiction of quantum mechanics but possibly just what you would expect for an MWI multiverse. Richard -- 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. -- 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
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. 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. -- 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
That's the truth! But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance. Brent On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote: Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. 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
And we won't get one.. As long as the lobby system runs Washington DC. Too much money is being made on the current dysfunctional health system we are stuck with. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:36 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health care system... On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious! Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off? If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off? And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on? To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time period. Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out). Otherwise it's murder. Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the guy who did it. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote: If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the monopoly. One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is falsifiable. I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable. Perhaps some clever experiments can be devised that indirectly test predictions made by String Theory. along the lines of the ESA experiment with the distant origin gamma rays, where they exploited the vast distances of billions of light year, carefully measuring aspects of the photons (i.e. their spin I believe) and deducing from this how spacetime must be smooth down to extraordinarily small distances in the order of trillions of times smaller than the Plank scale (itself far smaller than anything we can directly probe using the atom smasher tools at our disposal) I believe String Theory makes certain predictions about super symmetry for example that may be testable. Up until now however - it is my understanding - and I could be wrong (so if anyone knows better please do correct me) - that so far the predictions it makes have not been able to be subjected to any unambiguous test. For some years I felt it could never be done - the scales are just too fine grained for the kinds of tools we have to explore the small-scale, but when beautifully thought out experiments cleverly make use of levers such as the huge scale of distance traversed by some gamma ray to be able to make inferences about phenomena that cannot be directly measured (even by an atom smasher bigger than our solar system) I begin thinking that maybe its only a matter of time until some clever experimental physicist/cosmologist devises some lever to be able to infer things about Plank scale phenomena such as strings. 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 ... The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the emperor's new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their assertion of knowing. so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to pretend - or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital 'T') Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who delve into it - are quite a bit harder to sell. Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big metaphysical surprises. Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems. Exactly - the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it can say whatever it wants - after all who is checking lol -- and so can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally tuned comforting warm blanket of - essentially unquestioned -- spiritual foundationalism. People seek easy pat answers to the hard questions. and really who can blame them. Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their pre-made answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by self-awareness, and the ensuing awareness of one's own inevitable demise.. And the attendant psychological paralysis that opening this recursion of questions leading to deeper questions poses for the individual who may at any moment become lion food on the Savanna. Best to get an easy pat answer that addresses the dilemma and provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day. Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one
