Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 7:05:10 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane 
 extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to 
 asymptotically flat 
 like a huge and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an 
 infinitesimally 
 tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an 
 infinitely large 
 universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*


 All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You 
 must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of 
 a scale 
 factor, not a size.

>>>
>>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was 
>>> infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large 
>>> (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or 
>>> just very big.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe 
>> we miscommunicated. AG*
>>
>
> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 
>
> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>
> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
> allow 
> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes 
> the 
> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively 
> curved 
> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times 
> bigger 
> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at 
> small 
> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks 
> flat. The 
> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of 
> the 
> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but 
> what we 
> know about the Universe is that it is really big 
> .
>
>
> 
>
> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and 
> concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to 
> its 
> finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>
>
>
 It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang 
 occurred only at a point, rather than everywhere.

 Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it 
 flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
 return 
 to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for 
 every 
 point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen 
 at one 
 particular location long in the past, but at every point, including 
 the 
 period at the end of this sentence.

>>>
>>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. 
>>> AG *
>>>


>> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's 
>> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is 
>> significant 
>> data for it.
>>
>
> *I don't 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:



 On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane
>>> extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to 
>>> asymptotically flat
>>> like a huge and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an 
>>> infinitesimally
>>> tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an 
>>> infinitely large
>>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You
>>> must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of 
>>> a scale
>>> factor, not a size.
>>>
>>
>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was
>> infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large
>> (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>
>>
>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or
>> just very big.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe
> we miscommunicated. AG*
>

 Here's what Ned Wright wrote.

 Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

 We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the
 Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
 allow
 for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes 
 the
 flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved
 space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know
 empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times 
 bigger
 than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small
 piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks 
 flat. The
 simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of 
 the
 Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but 
 what we
 know about the Universe is that it is really big
 .


 

 *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and
 concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its
 finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*



>>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang
>>> occurred only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>>>
>>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it
>>> flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
>>> return
>>> to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every
>>> point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at 
>>> one
>>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the
>>> period at the end of this sentence.
>>>
>>
>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data.
>> AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's
> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is 
> significant
> data for it.
>

 *I don't believe it. AG *

>>>
>>> *I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG
>>> *
>>>


>> http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm
>>
>
> *When the movie is played in reverse, all points converge to a single
> point. This is for the observable 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 6:53:28 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane 
>>> extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to 
>>> asymptotically flat 
>>> like a huge and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an 
>>> infinitesimally 
>>> tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an 
>>> infinitely large 
>>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You 
>>> must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of 
>>> a scale 
>>> factor, not a size.
>>>
>>
>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was 
>> infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large 
>> (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>
>>
>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or 
>> just very big.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe 
> we miscommunicated. AG*
>

 Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 

 Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

 We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
 Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
 allow 
 for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes 
 the 
 flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved 
 space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
 empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times 
 bigger 
 than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at 
 small 
 piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks 
 flat. The 
 simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of 
 the 
 Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but 
 what we 
 know about the Universe is that it is really big 
 .


 

 *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and 
 concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to 
 its 
 finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*



>>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang 
>>> occurred only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>>>
>>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it 
>>> flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
>>> return 
>>> to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every 
>>> point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at 
>>> one 
>>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the 
>>> period at the end of this sentence.
>>>
>>
>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. 
>> AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's 
> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is 
> significant 
> data for it.
>

 *I don't believe it. AG *

>>>
>>> *I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG 
>>> *
>>>


>> http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm
>>
>
> *When the movie 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane 
>> extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically 
>> flat 
>> like a huge and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an 
>> infinitesimally 
>> tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an 
>> infinitely large 
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>>
>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You 
>> must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a 
>> scale 
>> factor, not a size.
>>
>
> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was 
> infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large 
> (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>
>
> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or 
> just very big.
>
> Brent
>

 *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe 
 we miscommunicated. AG*

>>>
>>> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 
>>>
>>> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>>>
>>> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
>>> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
>>> allow 
>>> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes 
>>> the 
>>> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved 
>>> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
>>> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times 
>>> bigger 
>>> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small 
>>> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. 
>>> The 
>>> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of 
>>> the 
>>> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what 
>>> we 
>>> know about the Universe is that it is really big 
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and 
>>> concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its 
>>> finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred 
>> only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>>
>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it 
>> flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
>> return 
>> to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every 
>> point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at 
>> one 
>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the 
>> period at the end of this sentence.
>>
>
> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. 
> AG *
>
>>
>>
 This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's 
 called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is 
 significant 
 data for it.

>>>
>>> *I don't believe it. AG *
>>>
>>
>> *I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm
>

*When the movie is played in reverse, all points converge to a single 
point. This is for the observable universe, which is finite in spatial 
extent. It can't be infinite if the expansion has been proceeding for 
finite time. Outside the observable region, it could 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/24/2018 3:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:42:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a
plane extending infinitely in all directions, as
opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge and
expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an
infinitesimally tiny universe at the time of the
BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large universe
extending infinitely in all directions. AG*


All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible
universe.  You must know that the Friedmann equation
just defines the dynamics of a scale factor, not a size.


*Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was
infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was
infinitely large (mathematically flat), or huge
(asymptotically flat)? AG *


Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually
flat or just very big.

Brent


*OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but
maybe we miscommunicated. AG*


Here's what Ned Wright wrote.


Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the
Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the
observations allow for either a positive or negative curvature,
and this range includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of
curvature. The negatively curved space is also infinite in volume
even though it is curved. So we know empirically that the volume
of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger than volume of the
observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an
object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The
simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties
of the Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is
infinite, but what we know about the Universe is that it isreally
big .




*
*
*It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and
concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due
to its finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a
reply. AG*


Why don't you look at his web tutorial.  He does not conclude the
/*visible*/ universe might be infinite.


*From the statement above, due to poor use of language, it seems he 
concludes the visible universe might be infinite.  I didn't see that 
corrected anywhere in his tutorial, but I didn't read it in its 
entirety. AG*



http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane
> extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically 
> flat
> like a huge and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an 
> infinitesimally
> tiny universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely 
> large
> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>
>
> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You
> must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a 
> scale
> factor, not a size.
>

 *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was
 infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large
 (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *


 Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or
 just very big.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we
>>> miscommunicated. AG*
>>>
>>
>> Here's what Ned Wright wrote.
>>
>> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>>
>> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the
>> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
>> allow
>> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the
>> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved
>> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know
>> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger
>> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small
>> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. 
>> The
>> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the
>> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what 
>> we
>> know about the Universe is that it is really big
>> .
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and
>> concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its
>> finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>>
>>
>>
> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred
> only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>
> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it
> flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
> return
> to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every
> point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at 
> one
> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the
> period at the end of this sentence.
>

 *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG
 *

>
>
>>> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's
>>> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is significant
>>> data for it.
>>>
>>
>> *I don't believe it. AG *
>>
>
> *I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG *
>
>>
>>
http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
 infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
 huge 
 and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
 universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
 universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*


 All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You 
 must know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a 
 scale 
 factor, not a size.

>>>
>>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
>>> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically 
>>> flat), 
>>> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or 
>>> just very big.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
>> miscommunicated. AG*
>>
>
> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 
>
> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>
> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
> allow 
> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the 
> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved 
> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger 
> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small 
> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. 
> The 
> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the 
> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what 
> we 
> know about the Universe is that it is really big 
> .
>
>
> 
>
> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and 
> concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its 
> finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>
>
>
 It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred 
 only at a point, rather than everywhere.

 Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it 
 flying away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would 
 return 
 to a single point centered at that location. But this is true for every 
 point in space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at 
 one 
 particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the 
 period at the end of this sentence.

>>>
>>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG *
>>>


>> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's 
>> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is significant 
>> data for it.
>>
>
> *I don't believe it. AG *
>

*I mean I don't believe your interpretation of the Concordance model. AG *

>
>
>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
>>> huge 
>>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must 
>>> know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale 
>>> factor, not a size.
>>>
>>
>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
>> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically 
>> flat), 
>> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>
>>
>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just 
>> very big.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
> miscommunicated. AG*
>

 Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 

 Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

 We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
 Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow 
 for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the 
 flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved 
 space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
 empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger 
 than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small 
 piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. 
 The 
 simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the 
 Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we 
 know about the Universe is that it is really big 
 .


 

 *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes 
 it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. 
 I 
 wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*



>>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred 
>>> only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>>>
>>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it flying 
>>> away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would return to a 
>>> single point centered at that location. But this is true for every point in 
>>> space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at one 
>>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the 
>>> period at the end of this sentence.
>>>
>>
>> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's 
> called the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is significant 
> data for it.
>

*I don't believe it. AG *

>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:



 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
>> huge
>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny
>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>>
>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must
>> know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale
>> factor, not a size.
>>
>
> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally
> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat),
> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>
>
> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just
> very big.
>
> Brent
>

 *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we
 miscommunicated. AG*

>>>
>>> Here's what Ned Wright wrote.
>>>
>>> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>>>
>>> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the
>>> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow
>>> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the
>>> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved
>>> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know
>>> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger
>>> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small
>>> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The
>>> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the
>>> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we
>>> know about the Universe is that it is really big
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes
>>> it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. I
>>> wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred
>> only at a point, rather than everywhere.
>>
>> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it flying
>> away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would return to a
>> single point centered at that location. But this is true for every point in
>> space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at one
>> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the
>> period at the end of this sentence.
>>
>
> *You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG *
>
>>
>>
This is the default "standard" model used used by cosmologists, it's called
the concordance model, or the Lambda-CDM model. There is significant data
for it.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function 
>> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
>> in the 
>> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the 
>> square of 
>> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>> produces 
>> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
>> objective, 
>> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
>> that is 
>> not deterministic.
>>
>
> >>> *It is still deterministic. *
>

 >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function 
 is deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 

>>>
>>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>>
>>
>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to 
>> get 
>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle 
>> at 
>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root 
>> of 
>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
>> exact 
>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you 
>> get 
>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>  
>>
>>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it 
> just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
> observers, 
> each of which observed different outcomes.*
>

 >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is 
 controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the 
 Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
 functions 
 of these 2 systems: 
 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it 
 is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X 
 and then goes on for 2 seconds.

 The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after 
 you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find 
 radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find 
 the 
 electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
 people 
 disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the 
 mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger 
 equation 
 describes in those two systems are NOT the same.

>>>
>>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter 
>>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you 
>>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>>
>>
>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
>> be 
>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do 
>> know the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us 
>> the probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular 
>> aspect of the system, but other than that things become controversial. 
>> Some 
>> people (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the 
>> math is telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot 
>> Wave people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree 
>> about 
>> what that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an 
>> observation is made forget about what the math may mean the very 
>> mathematics of the Schrodinger wave changes.
>>  
>>
>>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you 
>>> simulated an 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. *
>

No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not convinced it's right I'm just
not convinced it's dead wrong as you seem to be.

*> Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC?*
>

The LHC just went offline, when it comes back online after 2 years of
upgrades it should reach energies close to 15 TeV which corresponds to a
temperature of 10^17 Kelvin, and that is the temperature the entire
universe was in when it was about 10^-17 seconds old. But inflation was
over by the time the universe was 10^-35 seconds old. To inflation the
universe was already ancient when it was 10^-17 seconds old.

This may be related to the fact that no particle accelerator has found
anything surprising in 50 years; but telescopes have, they've revealed new
physics to us.


> *> At the end of the inflationary period, the temperature was absolute
> zero everywhere -- no fluctuations.*
>

If something was at absolute zero it would violate the third law of
thermodynamics. It would also violate quantum mechanics because you'd know
exactly what the velocity of a particle was (zero) and therefore its
position would not be meaningful because division by zero is not defined.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:42:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
 infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
 huge 
 and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
 universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
 universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*


 All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must 
 know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale 
 factor, not a size.

>>>
>>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
>>> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat), 
>>> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just 
>>> very big.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
>> miscommunicated. AG*
>>
>
> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 
>
> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big? 
>
> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe 
> is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for 
> either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat 
> Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is 
> also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know empirically 
> that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger than volume of 
> the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an object 
> that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest 
> mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is 
> then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about 
> the Universe is that it is really big 
> .
>
>
> 
>
> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes it 
> might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. I 
> wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>
>
> Why don't you look at his web tutorial.  He does not conclude the 
> *visible* universe might be infinite.
>

*From the statement above, due to poor use of language, it seems he 
concludes the visible universe might be infinite.  I didn't see that 
corrected anywhere in his tutorial, but I didn't read it in its entirety. 
AG*

>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
> huge 
> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>
>
> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must 
> know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale 
> factor, not a size.
>

 *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
 tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat), 
 or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *


 Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just 
 very big.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
>>> miscommunicated. AG*
>>>
>>
>> Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 
>>
>> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>>
>> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
>> Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow 
>> for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the 
>> flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved 
>> space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know 
>> empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger 
>> than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small 
>> piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The 
>> simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the 
>> Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we 
>> know about the Universe is that it is really big 
>> .
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes 
>> it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. I 
>> wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>>
>>
>>
> It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred only 
> at a point, rather than everywhere.
>
> Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it flying 
> away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would return to a 
> single point centered at that location. But this is true for every point in 
> space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at one 
> particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the 
> period at the end of this sentence.
>

*You seem inclined to extreme hypotheses for which there is no data. AG *

>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>
> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise
> they
> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is
> frame
> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at
> the
> same time.
>
>
 The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and
 the length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it
 could be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time
 given by a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just
 showing that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
 length through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an
 object's length will partially extend through space and partially extend
 through time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see
 a corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
 acceleration effects, or rigidness).

 If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with
 the two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
 acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
 the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
 what I am talking about, just to be clear.

 If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
 contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
 of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
 However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
 parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
 If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
 and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
 with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
 towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
 the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
 carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
 front or back of the ship.

>>>
>>> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same
>>> velocity there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I
>>> thought you were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can
>>> differ then, but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
>>> inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same,
>>> regardless of the distance apart.
>>>
>>>
>> As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
>> clocks will not appear to be in sync.
>>
>
> That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change in clock
> rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the point of view of
> someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the front and rear of the
> coasting rocket will be travelling at the same velocity relative to him. So
> they will both appear to  be going either faster or slower at exactly the
> same rate, depending on the direction of the relative motion.
>

Then what is the meaning of this problem on page 42:
https://www.relativity.li/uploads/pdf/English/Epstein_en.pdf

Two rockets fly past each other at 0.6 • c. A measures the length of the
other rocket B to be 40 m. What is the rest length of the rocket B, and how
much are the clocks at the tip and at the end of rocket B for A
desynchronized, given that they are synchronized for B? And which of the
two clocks is running fast for A?


More details:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html

Jason


>
> I think you have been totally confused by your ideas about everything
> going at a constant speed through either space or time. I thought you had a
> basic confusion when you appended those rather silly diagrams a post or so
> ago. You have to go back to the basic equations of the Lorentz
> transformation to get these things straight.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>

-- 
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 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:




On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

*If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a
plane extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed
to asymptotically flat like a huge and expanding
sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny
universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an
infinitely large universe extending infinitely in all
directions. AG*


All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible
universe.  You must know that the Friedmann equation just
defines the dynamics of a scale factor, not a size.


*Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was
infinitesimally tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely
large (mathematically flat), or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *


Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat
or just very big.

Brent


*OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe
we miscommunicated. AG*


Here's what Ned Wright wrote.


Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the 
Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations 
allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range 
includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The 
negatively curved space is also infinite in volume even though it is 
curved. So we know empirically that the volume of the Universe is more 
than 20 times bigger than volume of the observable Universe. Since we 
can only look at small piece of an object that has a large radius of 
curvature, it looks flat. The simplest mathematical model for 
computing the observed properties of the Universe is then flat 
Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about the 
Universe is that it isreally big 
.





*
*
*It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and 
concludes it might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to 
its finite age. I wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*


Why don't you look at his web tutorial.  He does not conclude the 
/*visible*/ universe might be infinite.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 8:44 AM  wrote:

> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:35:05 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Flatness is explained if the unknown parameter k in the FRW solution
 is set to zero. The the universe is always flat, no need to fine tune.
 Setting k = 1 or k = -1 is just as fine-tuned or not as k=0.*

>>>
>>> There are an infinite number of ways space could have been curved but
>>> you picked one particular way (no curvature at all) for your initial
>>> conditions and did so for no particular reason other than to make the
>>> theory fit the facts that you already knew. Inflation explains why
>>> spacetime curvature could have any finite value whatsoever when the
>>> universe first came into existence and it would still look flat today even
>>> with our most sensitive instruments. It didn't have to start out with
>>> spacetime being zero or anything close to it, and that doesn't sound
>>> fined-tuned to me.
>>>
>>> And the same thing is true of temperature, why are things at the same
>>> temperature when there was no time for them to come into thermal
>>> equilibrium? Inflation explains why, your explanation is they just did.
>>> Inflation says that  10^-35 seconds after the start of the universe and it
>>> had doubled in size about a hundred times  (and 10^35 seconds is a long
>>> long time compared to the Planck Time of 10^-43 seconds) the difference in
>>> temperature in our part of the universe would be almost zero but not
>>> precisely zero due to random quantum variations, and quantum theory allows
>>> you to calculate the intensity and size of what those temperature
>>> variations should have been. And you can also calculate what those
>>> temperature variations would evolve into after the universe has been
>>> expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is
>>> in general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can
>>> see, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000
>>> years after the Big Bang. So if we look at a map of that background
>>> radiation the largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light
>>> years across, spots larger than that wouldn't have had enough time to form
>>> because nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump
>>> wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump.
>>>
>>> So how large would an object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us
>>> if it's size was 380,000 light years across? The answer is one degree of
>>> arc, but ONLY if the universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines
>>> converge or diverge then the image of the largest structures we can see in
>>> the CMBR could appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on
>>> how the image was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is
>>> positively or negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this
>>> way the WMAP and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general
>>> flat, or at least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light
>>> years if the universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.
>>>
>>>
 >> It would seem to me that if two theories can explain observations
> then the one with the simpler initial conditions is the superior.
>

 *> The trouble is that inflation is not  a simple theory. Where does
 the inflation potential come from?*

>>>
>>> From the same place gravitational potential does I suppose, but
>>> inflation would be simpler, in General Relativity gravity needs a tensor
>>> field but inflation only needs a scalar field.
>>>
>>>
  > *Why don't we see the inflaton?*

>>>
>>> Maybe we do see it, maybe the acceleration of the universe we see today
>>> is the inflation field at work having undergone a  phase change when the
>>> universe was 10^-35 sec old and switched into a much lower gear. Or maybe
>>> not. Andrei Linde thinks the inflation field decayes away like radioactive
>>> half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more
>>> leisurely pace. But for that idea to work Guth's the inflation field had to
>>> expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde
>>> showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2
>>> other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in
>>> one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes
>>> splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in two of them but
>>> doesn't decay in the other 4.  And it goes on like this forever creating a
>>> multiverse.
>>>
>>> If any of this is true we may be able to prove it because Eternal
>>> Inflation would create gravitational waves with super long 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
 infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
 and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny
 universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large
 universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*


 All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must
 know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale
 factor, not a size.

>>>
>>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally
>>> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat),
>>> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just
>>> very big.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we
>> miscommunicated. AG*
>>
>
> Here's what Ned Wright wrote.
>
> Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
>
> We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe
> is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for
> either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat
> Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is
> also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know empirically
> that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger than volume of
> the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an object
> that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest
> mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is
> then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about
> the Universe is that it is really big
> .
>
>
> 
>
> *It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes it
> might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. I
> wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*
>
>
>
It's only impossible if you believe the believe the big bang occurred only
at a point, rather than everywhere.

Consider that every point in space sees everything else around it flying
away from it, such that if you rewound time, everything would return to a
single point centered at that location. But this is true for every point in
space, so the implication is that the BigBang didn't happen at one
particular location long in the past, but at every point, including the
period at the end of this sentence.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:35:05 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> *> Flatness is explained if the unknown parameter k in the FRW solution 
>>> is set to zero. The the universe is always flat, no need to fine tune. 
>>> Setting k = 1 or k = -1 is just as fine-tuned or not as k=0.*
>>>
>>
>> There are an infinite number of ways space could have been curved but you 
>> picked one particular way (no curvature at all) for your initial conditions 
>> and did so for no particular reason other than to make the theory fit the 
>> facts that you already knew. Inflation explains why spacetime curvature 
>> could have any finite value whatsoever when the universe first came into 
>> existence and it would still look flat today even with our most sensitive 
>> instruments. It didn't have to start out with spacetime being zero or 
>> anything close to it, and that doesn't sound  fined-tuned to me.
>>
>> And the same thing is true of temperature, why are things at the same 
>> temperature when there was no time for them to come into thermal 
>> equilibrium? Inflation explains why, your explanation is they just did.  
>> Inflation says that  10^-35 seconds after the start of the universe and it 
>> had doubled in size about a hundred times  (and 10^35 seconds is a long 
>> long time compared to the Planck Time of 10^-43 seconds) the difference in 
>> temperature in our part of the universe would be almost zero but not 
>> precisely zero due to random quantum variations, and quantum theory allows 
>> you to calculate the intensity and size of what those temperature 
>> variations should have been. And you can also calculate what those 
>> temperature variations would evolve into after the universe has been 
>> expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the 
>> same.
>>
>> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is 
>> in general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can 
>> see, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000 
>> years after the Big Bang. So if we look at a map of that background 
>> radiation the largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light 
>> years across, spots larger than that wouldn't have had enough time to form 
>> because nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump 
>> wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump. 
>>
>> So how large would an object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us 
>> if it's size was 380,000 light years across? The answer is one degree of 
>> arc, but ONLY if the universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines 
>> converge or diverge then the image of the largest structures we can see in 
>> the CMBR could appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on 
>> how the image was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is 
>> positively or negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this 
>> way the WMAP and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general 
>> flat, or at least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light 
>> years if the universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.
>>  
>>
>>> >> It would seem to me that if two theories can explain observations 
 then the one with the simpler initial conditions is the superior. 

>>>
>>> *> The trouble is that inflation is not  a simple theory. Where does the 
>>> inflation potential come from?*
>>>
>>
>> From the same place gravitational potential does I suppose, but inflation 
>> would be simpler, in General Relativity gravity needs a tensor field but 
>> inflation only needs a scalar field.
>>  
>>
>>>  > *Why don't we see the inflaton?*
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we do see it, maybe the acceleration of the universe we see today 
>> is the inflation field at work having undergone a  phase change when the 
>> universe was 10^-35 sec old and switched into a much lower gear. Or maybe 
>> not. Andrei Linde thinks the inflation field decayes away like radioactive 
>> half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more 
>> leisurely pace. But for that idea to work Guth's the inflation field had to 
>> expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde 
>> showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 
>> other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in 
>> one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes 
>> splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in two of them but 
>> doesn't decay in the other 4.  And it goes on like this forever creating a 
>> multiverse. 
>>
>> If any of this is true we may be able to prove it because Eternal 
>> Inflation would create gravitational waves with super long wavelengths that 
>> would produce very slight changes in the polarization of 

Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> Flatness is explained if the unknown parameter k in the FRW solution is
>> set to zero. The the universe is always flat, no need to fine tune. Setting
>> k = 1 or k = -1 is just as fine-tuned or not as k=0.*
>>
>
> There are an infinite number of ways space could have been curved but you
> picked one particular way (no curvature at all) for your initial conditions
> and did so for no particular reason other than to make the theory fit the
> facts that you already knew. Inflation explains why spacetime curvature
> could have any finite value whatsoever when the universe first came into
> existence and it would still look flat today even with our most sensitive
> instruments. It didn't have to start out with spacetime being zero or
> anything close to it, and that doesn't sound  fined-tuned to me.
>
> And the same thing is true of temperature, why are things at the same
> temperature when there was no time for them to come into thermal
> equilibrium? Inflation explains why, your explanation is they just did.
> Inflation says that  10^-35 seconds after the start of the universe and it
> had doubled in size about a hundred times  (and 10^35 seconds is a long
> long time compared to the Planck Time of 10^-43 seconds) the difference in
> temperature in our part of the universe would be almost zero but not
> precisely zero due to random quantum variations, and quantum theory allows
> you to calculate the intensity and size of what those temperature
> variations should have been. And you can also calculate what those
> temperature variations would evolve into after the universe has been
> expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the
> same.
>
> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is in
> general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can see,
> the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000 years
> after the Big Bang. So if we look at a map of that background radiation the
> largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light years across,
> spots larger than that wouldn't have had enough time to form because
> nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump
> wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump.
>
> So how large would an object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us if
> it's size was 380,000 light years across? The answer is one degree of arc,
> but ONLY if the universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines
> converge or diverge then the image of the largest structures we can see in
> the CMBR could appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on
> how the image was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is
> positively or negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this
> way the WMAP and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general
> flat, or at least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light
> years if the universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.
>
>
>> >> It would seem to me that if two theories can explain observations
>>> then the one with the simpler initial conditions is the superior.
>>>
>>
>> *> The trouble is that inflation is not  a simple theory. Where does the
>> inflation potential come from?*
>>
>
> From the same place gravitational potential does I suppose, but inflation
> would be simpler, in General Relativity gravity needs a tensor field but
> inflation only needs a scalar field.
>
>
>>  > *Why don't we see the inflaton?*
>>
>
> Maybe we do see it, maybe the acceleration of the universe we see today is
> the inflation field at work having undergone a  phase change when the
> universe was 10^-35 sec old and switched into a much lower gear. Or maybe
> not. Andrei Linde thinks the inflation field decayes away like radioactive
> half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more
> leisurely pace. But for that idea to work Guth's the inflation field had to
> expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde
> showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2
> other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in
> one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes
> splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in two of them but
> doesn't decay in the other 4.  And it goes on like this forever creating a
> multiverse.
>
> If any of this is true we may be able to prove it because Eternal
> Inflation would create gravitational waves with super long wavelengths that
> would produce very slight changes in the polarization of the cosmic
> microwave background radiation that we should be able to detect before
> long, assuming they exist.
>

You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. I am a lot more sceptical
because I see problems that 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 >
 > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
 > clocks accelerate at the same rate.

 First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
 could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
 different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is
 frame
 dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
 same time.


>>> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and
>>> the length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it
>>> could be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time
>>> given by a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just
>>> showing that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
>>> length through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an
>>> object's length will partially extend through space and partially extend
>>> through time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see
>>> a corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
>>> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>>>
>>> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with
>>> the two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
>>> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
>>> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
>>> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>>>
>>> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
>>> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
>>> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
>>> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
>>> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
>>> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
>>> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
>>> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
>>> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
>>> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
>>> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
>>> front or back of the ship.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same
>> velocity there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I
>> thought you were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can
>> differ then, but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
>> inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same,
>> regardless of the distance apart.
>>
>>
> As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
> clocks will not appear to be in sync.
>

That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change in clock
rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the point of view of
someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the front and rear of the
coasting rocket will be travelling at the same velocity relative to him. So
they will both appear to  be going either faster or slower at exactly the
same rate, depending on the direction of the relative motion.

I think you have been totally confused by your ideas about everything going
at a constant speed through either space or time. I thought you had a basic
confusion when you appended those rather silly diagrams a post or so ago.
You have to go back to the basic equations of the Lorentz transformation to
get these things straight.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge 
>>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must 
>>> know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale 
>>> factor, not a size.
>>>
>>
>> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
>> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat), 
>> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>>
>>
>> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just 
>> very big.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
> miscommunicated. AG*
>

Here's what Ned Wright wrote. 

Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe 
is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for 
either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat 
Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is 
also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know empirically 
that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger than volume of 
the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an object 
that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest 
mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is 
then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about 
the Universe is that it is really big 
.




*It is misleading. He's referring to the VISIBLE universe and concludes it 
might be infinite in spatial extent. Impossible due to its finite age. I 
wrote him about this, but never received a reply.  AG*

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:52:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM > wrote:
>
> *> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge 
>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>
> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we do 
> know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that if 
> the universe is curved at all it is by less than one part in 100,000.
>
>  John K Clark
>

*Agreed. However, IMO the observed universe cannot be flat with exactly 
zero curvature, since that would imply infinite volume which contradicts 
its finite age. That is, if the observable universe started as 
infinitesimally small, and evolves for a finite time until the present, it 
cannot be mathematically flat. I believe it is shaped like a huge 
hyper-dimensional sphere, close to, but not "flat. The unobserved part 
could possibly be mathematically flat and therefore infinite in extent. I 
have discussed this with Brent in the past and he seems to disagree with my 
conclusion. But maybe we mis-communicated. AG*

>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge 
>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>>
>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must know 
>> that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale factor, 
>> not a size.
>>
>
> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally tiny, 
> but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically flat), or 
> huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>
>
> Right.  Although we can't be sure whether it is actually flat or just very 
> big.
>
> Brent
>

*OK. Agreed. We seemed to disagree on this in the past, but maybe we 
miscommunicated. AG*

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:52:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM > wrote:
>
> *> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge 
>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>
> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we do 
> know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that if 
> the universe is curved at all it is by less than one part in 100,000.
>
>  John K Clark
>

*Agreed. However, IMO the observed universe cannot be flat with exactly 
zero curvature (which I refer to as "mathematically flat) since that would 
imply infinite volume which contradicts its finite age. That is, if the 
observable universe started as infinitesimally small, and evolves for a 
finite time until the present, it cannot be mathematically flat. I believe 
it is shaped like a huge hyper-dimensional sphere, close to, but not 
exactly "flat. The unobserved part could possibly be mathematically flat 
and therefore infinite in extent. I have discussed this with Brent in the 
past and he seems to disagree with my conclusion. But maybe we 
mis-communicated. AG*

>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/24/2018 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum
gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic
physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity, which explains the
dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new
equations describe black holes in loop quantum gravity and
showed that black hole singularity does not exist.


"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be
divided as small as we want. This is essentially the cause of
the singularity where the gravitational field becomes infinite.
In loop quantum gravity, the fabric of space-time has a
*tile-like structure*, which cannot be divided beyond the
smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the
case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,"
Singh said.


"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum
excitations'-- which resolve the singularity problem are orders
of magnitude smaller than we can detect with today's
technology, but we have precise mathematical equations that
predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the
founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.



But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2
which showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck
length?


Brent,

Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In 
another thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't 
one of Bruno's predictions that space and time would be continuous 
(not discrete), therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.


First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space.


By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics.


How does that define open sets?

But intuitively, you can see them arising from the fact that the first 
person indeterminacy has a continuum range, as the DU multiplies all 
histories on all oracles (real numbers) in the limit of all 
computations, which cannot be avoided from the first person views 
associated to the machine.


But you haven't even defined a first persons' "views", appearance from a 
given place.  You need metric space and physiscs for that.







Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction 
peculiar to Bruno.


Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is 
explained by Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton 
assumed the continuum at the start, which is not an explanation, even 
if that was a very clever move to get the correct local prediction. 
Note that Newton was aware that his theory was on shaky metaphysical 
base, though.


Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To 
derive that time or position are such observable would need to get a 
notion of space, which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult 
things to get. We will get first the mathematics of knots, and derive 
space from there, perhaps.


Which I take as an admission that you have not done so.

Brent

String theory suggest that space could be a continuum, unlike Quantum 
Loop Gravity, and mathematically, string theory seems to be favoured 
by Mechanism, but that remains quite beyond … the mathematical logical 
tools available today ...


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
> David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
> are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>
> “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous






So this (multiverse substrate) allows the universe to be a "continuous 
computer"?



*Finding the best model for continuous computation*
http://www.math.harvard.edu/theses/senior/resnick/resnick.pdf

Abstract.
* While the theory of computability over countable sets is well defined and 
flexible, the definition of computability over continuous sets (e.g. the 
real numbers), without the fortification provided by the Church-Turing 
Thesis, is much more contentious. Since Turing’s introduction of a 
universal device for computation over countable sets (the “universal Turing 
Machine”), several demonstrably non-equivalent formalizations of the 
intuitive notion of continuous (alternately: analog) computation, and more 
specifically, computation over the real numbers, have been proposed. None 
of these is yet accepted by the majority of mathematicians, and, as a 
result, the contemporary landscape of research into continuous computation 
is factional. I will present and compare several of dominant theories of 
continuous computation, including techniques from recursive analysis and 
the Blum-Smale-Shub model.*

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


...

With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of 
the initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in 
the sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does 
not depend on which universal machinery we talk about).


Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of 
the universal machine on all computations going through (any) of 
its states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called 
geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires 
long and deep histories.


So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
conservation of energy-momentum for example?


You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is 
not yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.


Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is 
simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, 
there is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.


Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong


Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, 
unlike the materialist metaphysics.





(2) Your argument is wrong




Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume 
this, you have to find the mistake.


One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental" 
implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that no 
physical implementation is required at all.  Another is supposing that 
an "ideal machine" that knows/believes/proves every theorem of 
arithmetic is a reasonable model of conscious thought.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Mythbusters: Does God Exist?

2018-12-24 Thread John Clark
Mythbusters: Does God Exist? 

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> >
>>> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
>>> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>>>
>>> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
>>> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
>>> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is frame
>>> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>>
>> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and the
>> length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could
>> be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time given by
>> a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just showing
>> that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The length
>> through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an object's
>> length will partially extend through space and partially extend through
>> time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see a
>> corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
>> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>>
>> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with the
>> two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
>> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
>> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
>> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>>
>> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
>> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
>> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
>> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
>> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
>> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
>> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
>> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
>> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
>> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
>> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
>> front or back of the ship.
>>
>
> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same velocity
> there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I thought you
> were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can differ then,
> but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving inertially,
> and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same, regardless of
> the distance apart.
>
>
As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
clocks will not appear to be in sync.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM  wrote:

*> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny
> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large
> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>

You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we do
know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that if
the universe is curved at all it is by less than one part in 100,000.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Flatness is explained if the unknown parameter k in the FRW solution is
> set to zero. The the universe is always flat, no need to fine tune. Setting
> k = 1 or k = -1 is just as fine-tuned or not as k=0.*
>

There are an infinite number of ways space could have been curved but you
picked one particular way (no curvature at all) for your initial conditions
and did so for no particular reason other than to make the theory fit the
facts that you already knew. Inflation explains why spacetime curvature
could have any finite value whatsoever when the universe first came into
existence and it would still look flat today even with our most sensitive
instruments. It didn't have to start out with spacetime being zero or
anything close to it, and that doesn't sound  fined-tuned to me.

And the same thing is true of temperature, why are things at the same
temperature when there was no time for them to come into thermal
equilibrium? Inflation explains why, your explanation is they just did.
Inflation says that  10^-35 seconds after the start of the universe and it
had doubled in size about a hundred times  (and 10^35 seconds is a long
long time compared to the Planck Time of 10^-43 seconds) the difference in
temperature in our part of the universe would be almost zero but not
precisely zero due to random quantum variations, and quantum theory allows
you to calculate the intensity and size of what those temperature
variations should have been. And you can also calculate what those
temperature variations would evolve into after the universe has been
expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the
same.

That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is in
general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can see, the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000 years
after the Big Bang. So if we look at a map of that background radiation the
largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light years across,
spots larger than that wouldn't have had enough time to form because
nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump
wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump.

So how large would an object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us if
it's size was 380,000 light years across? The answer is one degree of arc,
but ONLY if the universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines
converge or diverge then the image of the largest structures we can see in
the CMBR could appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on
how the image was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is
positively or negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this
way the WMAP and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general
flat, or at least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light
years if the universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.


> >> It would seem to me that if two theories can explain observations then
>> the one with the simpler initial conditions is the superior.
>>
>
> *> The trouble is that inflation is not  a simple theory. Where does the
> inflation potential come from?*
>

>From the same place gravitational potential does I suppose, but inflation
would be simpler, in General Relativity gravity needs a tensor field but
inflation only needs a scalar field.


>  > *Why don't we see the inflaton?*
>

Maybe we do see it, maybe the acceleration of the universe we see today is
the inflation field at work having undergone a  phase change when the
universe was 10^-35 sec old and switched into a much lower gear. Or maybe
not. Andrei Linde thinks the inflation field decayes away like radioactive
half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more
leisurely pace. But for that idea to work Guth's the inflation field had to
expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it "Eternal Inflation". Linde
showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2
other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in
one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes
splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in two of them but
doesn't decay in the other 4.  And it goes on like this forever creating a
multiverse.

If any of this is true we may be able to prove it because Eternal Inflation
would create gravitational waves with super long wavelengths that would
produce very slight changes in the polarization of the cosmic microwave
background radiation that we should be able to detect before long, assuming
they exist.

 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 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Mason Green
David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes are 
discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous).

“within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two values 
of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the transition does 
not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the price of continuous 
motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but an infinity of concurrent 
actions taking place across the multiverse.” January, 2001 The Discrete and the 
Continuous

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-12-24 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:55:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2018, at 13:39, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:20:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 11:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:18:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 14:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The psychical (experiential) states of matter (brain) 
>>>
>>>
>>> Why a brain? If matter can be conscious, what is the role of the 
>>> (non-digital) brain?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> are the real constituents (psychicals) of consciousness. The 
>>> brain-as-computer operates with psychicals as a Turing-machine operates 
>>> with symbols. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t understand. To be sure, I have no idea at all of this could 
>>> work. Please try to explain like you would explain this to a kid. Up to 
>>> now, I see only a magical use of word.
>>>
>>> For a logician, a theory works when you can substitute any words by any 
>>> words. Maybe use the axiomatic presentation, with f_i for the functional 
>>> symbols, and R_i for the relation symbols. If not, it is hard to see if 
>>> there is a theory, or just idea-associations.
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whether psychicals (*experiential states*) go down to, say insects, 
>> that's one thing scientists are studying:
>>
>> 
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/
>>
>> Whether they go down to cells, molecules, particles, ... ,that's another 
>> thing (the next chapter):
>>
>> 
>> https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117019/galileo-s-error/9781846046018.html
>>
>>  
>>
>> On experiential semantics (for brain-as-computer): The toy example as 
>> I've given before is to think of a Turing-type computer, but instead of 
>> operating with symbols, it is operating with emojis - but the emojis have 
>> actual (material!) realization as experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> You lost me. One of my goal is to explain “matter”, and with mechanism, 
>> we cannot assume it at the start. Mechanism makes any role for some primary 
>> matter being quite magical.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> But the point is: Matter is not *Mechanistic*.
> Matter is *Experientialistic*.
>
> That's the whole thing!
>
>
> But Mechanism implies exactly this: matter is experientialistic (first 
> person, phenomenological) and indeed not emulable by any Turing machine, 
> and so Mechanism explains the existence of a non mechanistic 
> phenomenological matter. For example, to copy any piece of matter, we would 
> need to run the entire universal dovetailing in a finite time, this entails 
> a “non-cloning” theorem for matter, confirmed by QM.
> In arithmetic, the universal machines are confronted with many non 
> computable things, including first person and consciousness, and matter. 
> Most arithmetical truth are not computable, and the matter indeterminacy 
> inherit it by the First Person Indeterminacy on all computations.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>


Engineers might be happy with imperfect cloning of matter.


- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
>>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
>>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
>>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
>>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
>>> as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
>>> gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
>>> of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided beyond the 
>>> smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside 
>>> black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
>>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
>>> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
>>> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
>>> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>>> 
>> 
>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 
>>  which showed spacetime to be smooth down 
>> to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>> 
>> Brent,
>> 
>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another 
>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's 
>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete), 
>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2  would 
>> be a confirmation of that.
> 
> First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space. 

By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics. But intuitively, you 
can see them arising from the fact that the first person indeterminacy has a 
continuum range, as the DU multiplies all histories on all oracles (real 
numbers) in the limit of all computations, which cannot be avoided from the 
first person views associated to the machine.




> Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction peculiar to 
> Bruno.

Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is explained by 
Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton assumed the continuum at 
the start, which is not an explanation, even if that was a very clever move to 
get the correct local prediction. Note that Newton was aware that his theory 
was on shaky metaphysical base, though.

Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To derive 
that time or position are such observable would need to get a notion of space, 
which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult things to get. We will 
get first the mathematics of knots, and derive space from there, perhaps. 
String theory suggest that space could be a continuum, unlike Quantum Loop 
Gravity, and mathematically, string theory seems to be favoured by Mechanism, 
but that remains quite beyond … the mathematical logical tools available today 
...

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 01:45, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> 
>> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz 
>> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
> 
> This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that physics is 
> already in a large part derivable from simple invariance principles.
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Do you recall which of his books this is? ( 
> https://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA 
>  )
> 


Hi Jason,

I was alluding to “The comprehensible cosmos”: this one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591024242/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

A very good one!

Bruno



> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 ...
 
 With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
 universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
 initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of 
 theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which 
 universal machinery we talk about). 
 
 Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
 universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. 
 All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
 historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
>>> 
>>> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
>>> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
>> 
>> You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not yet 
>> energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.
>> 
>> Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply 
>> wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no other 
>> choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.
> 
> Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong

Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, unlike the 
materialist metaphysics.



> (2) Your argument is wrong
> 


Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume this, you 
have to find the mistake.

Bruno




> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed 
 into classical logic,
>>> 
>>> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted the 
>>> logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your theory, 
>>> but would have had no effect on physics.
>> 
>> If the theory incorrectly predict something, it has to be abandoned. Your 
>> way of phrasing things seems strange to me. The notion of incorrect 
>> prediction is fuzzy. If mechanism incorrectly predict that an electron 
>> weight is one kilogram, then, we correct the prediction, and if we find it 
>> is 2 kilos, we still abandon the theory (unless get some further 
>> explanation, like the presence of hyper bosons with negative masses happing 
>> to keep up the appearances …
> 
> But you don't predict anything like that.  You assume that elements 
> implementing computations could be substituted for parts of the human brain 
> with noticeable effect.  So that's one thing that could be wrong.  It might 
> be that you have to use atoms and molecules.  The rest of your agrument, that 
> cosmic rays could intervene to repair brain damage also seems doubtful.  And 
> your reliance on quantum mechanics may well be undermined by the quantum 
> theory of gravity.  Your theory doesn't predict anything and it only 
> retrodicts a few aspects of QM.
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> I have no theory. Digital Mechanism is already implicit in Darwin theory of 
>> evolution, and molecular biology has confirmed the (relative) digital aspect 
>> of it. 
>> 
>> All hamiltonian use in physics are computable, and QM preserves 
>> computability, so non mechanism is speculating on appeal to magical 
>> thinking, without evidences.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that 
 case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories 
 possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. 
 Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the 
 measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non 
 trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities 
 are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
 leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that 
 “observable” view point.
>>> 
>>> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd say 
>>> are trivial.
>> 
>> Not at all, that gives a quantum logic for the yes-no experiences, and if it 
>> is the right type, you will get a Gleason theorem (as it should be with 
>> Mechanism), and derives the other probabilities from this.
>> 
>> Anyway, no other theories works today, I think. Physics works, because it 
>> makes a listing assumption which is just non sensical with digital 
>> mechanism. You need infinite amount of energy/information to localise a soul 
>> in a body when you assume mechanism.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine 
 (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural 
 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark > wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch > wrote:
>> 
>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using 
>>  complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the 
>>  same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
>>  of the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>>  produces a probability that we can measure in the physical world that 
>>  is objective, provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields 
>>  something that is not deterministic.
>> 
>> >>> It is still deterministic. 
>> 
>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
>> >>deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
>> 
>> > This is incorrect.
>> 
>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at 
>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of 
>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact 
>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get 
>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>  
>> >>> Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just says 
>> >>> that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each 
>> >>> of which observed different outcomes.
>> 
>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, 
>> >>but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger 
>> >>equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave functions of these 2 
>> >>systems: 
>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it is 
>> observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then 
>> goes on for 2 seconds.
>> 
>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've 
>> taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically 
>> different probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron after 
>> 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree over 
>> quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and the 
>> mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those two 
>> systems are NOT the same.
>> 
>> > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the 
>> > measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the 
>> > system [...]
>> 
>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be 
>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the 
>> square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the probability 
>> of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect of the 
>> system, but other than that things become controversial. Some people (the 
>> shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is telling 
>> us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave people) say the 
>> math is telling us more than that but disagree about what that is. But 
>> everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation is made forget 
>> about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the Schrodinger wave 
>> changes.
>>  
>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an 
>> > experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory 
>> > input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 
>> > and 1).
>> 
>> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind 
>> other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what I 
>> believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other 
>> people, including some very smart ones, disagree so we could be wrong.
>> 
>>  
>> Such people disbelieve in the Schrodinger equation.
>> 
>> Suppose (courtesy of Bruce) the SE represents a horse race with the 
>> probabilities varying wrt time. What's your view of the status 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:45:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM > wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
> 
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. We 
> know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there will 
> be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation of 
> theorems.
> 
> Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG
> 
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you referred 
> to are broad principles, not axioms.
> 
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic.
> 
> Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG
> 
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that most 
> logicians use that term.
> 
> An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG
> 
> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just a 
> formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.
> 
> IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
> obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
> Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
> evolves. Give me a break. AG 
> 
> The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude 
> would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and definition are 
> not obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be more clear, and to 
> prevent the use of metaphysical biases.
> 
> When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but 
> when doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t,
> 
> Why not? It's a good hypothesis or axiom that correctly predicts the behavior 
> of the wf (for non relativistic QM). What would you replace it with? AG


It does it well FAPP, but to relate it to the first person experience, it uses 
an identity brain-mind which is invalid when we assume mechanism. So physics 
uses an implicit reference to an ontological commitment, involving infinities 
for which we have no evidence, and which would contradicts most known theories, 
from evolution to QM.

It is the point of the UDA reasoning. I do not claim this is entirely obvious. 
Physics works well, but it cannot predict anything if we assume mechanism, the 
laws must be derived in a certain way so at to get the correct type of 
supervenience on mind on computations allowed by computer science/arithmetic.

With mechanism, we must use any Turing complete theory, minus induction axioms, 
and minus infinity axioms. We must derive the SWE (assuming it physically 
correct) from the statistics on all computations. Invoking a “real matter” does 
not work better than invoking “God” or something. It just does not work. If you 
predict an eclipse, you still cannot predict you will feel to see an eclipse, 
as you would need to assume absence of Boltzman Brain in the universe … and in 
arithmetic, but that is not possible: they are there.

Bruno




> 
> and this is just an example, so it helps to use the terms with they standard 
> meaning in science, and not with imprecise meanings which usually only hides 
> the (open) problems.
> 
> 
> 
> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics.
> 
> Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure "for 
> physics". AG 
> 
> They failed,
> 
> It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG 
> 
> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
> abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
> 
> Most physicists are not confused as you allege.
> 
> I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or with 
> physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The 
> Aristotelian 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 23 Dec 2018, at 13:39, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:20:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 11:06, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:18:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 14:49, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The psychical (experiential) states of matter (brain)
>> 
>> Why a brain? If matter can be conscious, what is the role of the 
>> (non-digital) brain?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> are the real constituents (psychicals) of consciousness. The 
>>> brain-as-computer operates with psychicals as a Turing-machine operates 
>>> with symbols. 
>> 
>> I don’t understand. To be sure, I have no idea at all of this could work. 
>> Please try to explain like you would explain this to a kid. Up to now, I see 
>> only a magical use of word.
>> 
>> For a logician, a theory works when you can substitute any words by any 
>> words. Maybe use the axiomatic presentation, with f_i for the functional 
>> symbols, and R_i for the relation symbols. If not, it is hard to see if 
>> there is a theory, or just idea-associations.
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Whether psychicals (experiential states) go down to, say insects, that's one 
>> thing scientists are studying:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-insects-have-consciousness-180959484/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Whether they go down to cells, molecules, particles, ... ,that's another 
>> thing (the next chapter):
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117019/galileo-s-error/9781846046018.html
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On experiential semantics (for brain-as-computer): The toy example as I've 
>> given before is to think of a Turing-type computer, but instead of operating 
>> with symbols, it is operating with emojis - but the emojis have actual 
>> (material!) realization as experience.
> 
> 
> You lost me. One of my goal is to explain “matter”, and with mechanism, we 
> cannot assume it at the start. Mechanism makes any role for some primary 
> matter being quite magical.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is: Matter is not Mechanistic.
> Matter is Experientialistic.
> 
> That's the whole thing!

But Mechanism implies exactly this: matter is experientialistic (first person, 
phenomenological) and indeed not emulable by any Turing machine, and so 
Mechanism explains the existence of a non mechanistic phenomenological matter. 
For example, to copy any piece of matter, we would need to run the entire 
universal dovetailing in a finite time, this entails a “non-cloning” theorem 
for matter, confirmed by QM.
In arithmetic, the universal machines are confronted with many non computable 
things, including first person and consciousness, and matter. Most arithmetical 
truth are not computable, and the matter indeterminacy inherit it by the First 
Person Indeterminacy on all computations.

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: CMBR and Horizon Problem

2018-12-24 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:22:34 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:02 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:47:02 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:33 PM  wrote:
>>>
 On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending 
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a 
>> huge 
>> and expanding sphere,  you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny 
>> universe at the time of the BB, and simultaneously an infinitely large 
>> universe extending infinitely in all directions. AG*
>>
>>
>> All that's "infinitesimally tiny" is the visible universe.  You must 
>> know that the Friedmann equation just defines the dynamics of a scale 
>> factor, not a size.
>>
>
> *Are you claiming the visible universe at the BB was infinitesimally 
> tiny, but the non visible part was infinitely large (mathematically 
> flat), 
> or huge (asymptotically flat)? AG *
>

 *Bruce says the universe is always flat if k=1. How can it be 
 everywhere flat if there's a region which is infinitely tiny; hence not 
 flat in the visible region? How are we to imagine this? TIA, AG *

>>>
>>> That's a bit confused. k=0 corresponds to a universe that is everywhere 
>>> flat (in space, but not necessarily in the time dimension - i.e., it might 
>>> be expanding. Our current visible universe originated in a small (tiny) 
>>> region of the total structure, which might be infinite in extent, but flat 
>>> everywhere, even in our tiny region.
>>>
>>
>> *Not to split hairs, but how can the tiny visible region also be flat and 
>> infinite in extent, if its age is finite? I can imagine the visible region 
>> to be asymptotically (but not mathematically) flat, and therefore finite in 
>> extent. AG *
>>
>
> I said that the total structure might be infinite in extent, not the 
> region that became our visible universe. Flatness is a mathematical 
> property -- imagination readily fails to visualise these things.
>

*I can visualize it. The total structure might be infinite in extent (flat, 
possibly like a mathematical plane) or just very large, but the visible 
universe, being of finite age, can be no larger than asymptotically flat 
(like the surface of a huge expanding sphere) and thus finite in spatial 
extent. I've noticed that some cosmologists are sloppy in claiming the 
visible part is "flat" and infinite, which is impossible, failing to 
qualify "flat" to mean "asymptotically flat", finite in spatial extent 
because it has finite age. I think this answers Brent's issue with my 
comments as well. AG*



> Bruce
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.