Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 3/6/2020 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> This video just went online, I thought it was excellent:
>>
>> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why
>> 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> Impressive graphics, but the same oldsame old
>
> Bruce
>
>
> You might find this interview of Sean Carroll more interesting.  He's
> aware of the problems with MWI and is fairly candid about it even though he
> likes it.  Start at 54:00 to skip all the explanation of QM.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjDiOu5__oA
>

I'm glad that Sean finds that the objection I am making to Many-worlds to
be one of the most cogent objections. Unfortunately, he does not answer the
objection..

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQBzS4Ansn0gM8MWXuFLLjxogV%2ByqhLFu7xvq4wGgWFGw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> What do you think about identifying what one finds as an observer as a
> probability of being one of the leaves of the branching MWI tree, i.e.
> interpreting self-location uncertainty by probability.  I see no problem
> with looking at those leaves as an ensemble and one's experience as an
> element (a sequence of results) as a probabilistic sample from this
> ensemble.  The fact that no one can "see" the ensemble is like any
> probability example in which the ensemble is usually just hypothetical,
> i.e. what could have happened (or what Kastner calls "possibility space").
>

This is Sean's self-locating uncertainty. The problem is that the ensemble
within which one is to self-locate has to be divided up according to the
Born rule. You can do this, as you suggested, by having multiple branches
in ratios according to the Born probabilities -- a possibility that I do
not think can be achieved because of the limitation on the number of
possible bit strings for binary outcomes. The other possibility is Sean's
idea of branch weights, or 'thicknesses'. But that does not appear to
multiply the number of members of the ensemble according to the Born
probabilities. Sean is essentially saying "Just assume the appropriate
probability distribution over the ensemble, then self-select." That does
not really solve any problem -- it is just begging the question.

So I can still see problems with these approaches, particularly when the
probability one infers from the data on the selected branch has to agree
with the probability distribution over branches -- can't see it, to tell
the truth.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRoA1_JQhDYFU12rSAQHwk6gN_9HyZHqRTbF-tRBBvQpw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/6/2020 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:22 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 3/5/2020 10:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

In the full set of all 2^N branches there will, of course, be
branches in which this is the case. But that is just because when
every possible bit string is included, that possibility will also
occur. The problem is that the proportion of branches for which
this is the case becomes small as N increases.


But not the proportion of branches which are within a fixed
deviation from 2:1.  That proportion will increase with N.

I can see that I'm going to have to write a program to produce and
example for you.


I look forward to such a program -- my computer programming skills 
have abandoned me..


The trouble is that my intuition does not stretch to what happens in 
the branch multiplication situation -- I can convince myself either 
way


Kent covers this scenario in his paper (arxiv:0905.0624). He writes:

"Consider a replicating multiverse, with a machine like the first one, 
in which branches arise as the result of technologically advanced 
beings running simulations. Whenever the red button is pressed in a 
simulated universe, that universe is deleted, and successor universes 
with outcomes 0 and 1 written on the tape are initiated. Suppose, in 
this case, that each time, the beings create three identical 
simulations with outcome 0, and just one with outcome 1. From the 
perspective of the inhabitants, there is no way to detect that 
outcomes 0 and 1 are being treated differently, and so they represent 
them in their theories with one branch each. In fact, though, given 
this representation, there is an at least arguably natural sense in 
which they ought to assign to the outcome 0 branch three times the 
importance of the outcome 1 branch: in other words, they ought to 
assign branch weights (3/4,1/4).


"They don't know this. But suppose that they believe that there are 
unknown weights attached to the branches. What happens now? After N 
runs of the experiment, there will actually be 4^N simulations, 
although in the inhabitants' theoretical representation, these are 
represented by 2^N branches. Of the 4^N simulation, almost all (for 
large N) will contain close to 3N/4 zeros and N/4 ones."


This is where my intuition breaks down -- this is by no means obvious 
to me, though I know that this is what you predicted for the 3:1 case 
we discussed before. My problem with this conclusion is that there are 
only 2^ distinct bit strings of length N. So the 4^N simulations must 
contain a lot of duplications. In fact, 4^N is immeasurably larger 
than 2^N: 4^N/2^N = 2^N. So there must be an infinite number of 
replicates as N --> oo. Why should those bit strings with the ratio 
4:1 of zeros to ones be favoured in the duplications? Would not all 
strings be duplicated uniformly, so that the 4^N simulations will 
contain exactly the same ratio of 4:1 ratio bit strings as the 
original 2^N possible bit strings does. My intuition is clearly 
different from Kent's and your's.


Now Kent goes on:
"Now, I think I can see how to run some, though not all, of an 
argument that supports this conclusion. The branch importance measure 
defined by inhabitants who find relative frequency 3/4 of zeros 
corresponds to the counting measure on simulations. If we could argue, 
for instance by appealing to symmetry, that each of the 4^N 
simulations is equally important, then this branch importance measure 
would indeed be justified. If we could also argue, perhaps using some 
form of anthropic reasoning, that there is an equal chance of finding 
oneself in any of the 4^N simulations, then the chance of finding 
oneself in a simulation in which one concludes that the branch weights 
are (very close to) (3/4,1/4) would be very close to one. ... There 
would indeed then seem to be a sense in which the branch weights 
define which subsets of the branches are important for theory 
confirmation.


"It seems hard to make this argument rigorous. In particular, the 
notion of 'chance of finding oneself' in a particular simulation 
doesn't seem easy to define properly. Still, we have an arguable 
natural measure on simulations, the counting measure, according to 
which most of the inhabitants will arrive at (close to) the right 
theory of branch weights. That might perhaps be progress."



It is clear that Kent is far from convinced by this. And I have 
indicated that I am far from convinced even of things that Kent seems 
to find intuitively obvious. This needs to be worked through more 
carefully -- I remain unconvinced that branch duplication provides a 
way of getting probabilities into the data.


What do you think about identifying what one finds as an observer as a 
probability of being one of the leaves of the branching MWI tree, i.e. 
interpreting self-location uncertainty by

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/6/2020 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM John Clark > wrote:


This video just went online, I thought it was excellent:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why


John K Clark


Impressive graphics, but the same oldsame old

Bruce


You might find this interview of Sean Carroll more interesting. He's 
aware of the problems with MWI and is fairly candid about it even though 
he likes it.  Start at 54:00 to skip all the explanation of QM. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjDiOu5__oA


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc76dd85-eaca-0285-1c8c-8eae445bfcdd%40verizon.net.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> This video just went online, I thought it was excellent: 
>
> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

MWI has its advantages, but the meaning of what is classical is lost. With 
Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation the quantum and classical domains are 
equal or complementary, but the boundary between them unknown. There is in 
either case an incompleteness. With MWI the measurement is no longer tied 
to a specific event, which has some advantages with possible quantum 
gravitation. However, this mean these branches occur independent of 
probability, which is difficult to understand in line with there being a 
whole cosmic wave function. 

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/632e0990-45b3-4c0a-bee1-38ea1432bfa1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/6/2020 3:31 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:28:31 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 9:03:21 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

Galactic clusters are the largest structures in the universe
held together by gravity and the Ophiuchus Supercluster
contains 4021 known galaxies, it's likely none of them contain
life, much less intelligent life. Telescopes have seen
evidence that the largest galaxy in the center of the cluster
underwent a gargantuan explosion at least 240 million years
earlier, it's 390 million light years away so the explosion
happened at least 630 million years ago. It's thought that 270
million solar masses of gas and dust was sucked into the black
hole at the center of the galaxy producing something
equivalent to a supernova going off every month for a 100
million years. Something like that would probably sterilize
not only the galaxy but the entire cluster. And Ophiuchus is
relatively nearby so it's almost certain there are more
distant clusters that suffered even larger explosions. It
looks like the Milky Way has just been lucky.

DISCOVERY OF A GIANT RADIO FOSSIL IN THE OPHIUCHUS GALAXY
CLUSTER


John K Clark


Even if life is terribly improbable, such as how nucleotides
emerged or even worse ribosomes, it did so in this galaxy. It is
possible that biology has been spread around this galaxy with
asteroid impacts. Ejecta from such impacts on a bio-active planet
could send microbes on a long journey to another planet. It is
then plausible that biology is fairly common in this galaxy, but
not others.

LC


https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00094.html 




  Is life a game of chance? Study reveals life in the universe could
  be common, but not in our neighborhood Research news

To help answer one of the great existential questions - how did life 
begin? - a new study combines biological and cosmological models. 
Professor Tomonori Totani from the Department of Astronomy looked at 
how life’s building blocks could spontaneously form in the universe - 
a process known as abiogenesis.


If there’s one thing in the universe that is certain, it’s that life 
exists. It must have begun at some point in time, somewhere. But 
despite all we know from biology and physics, the exact details about 
how and when life began, and also whether it began elsewhere, are 
largely speculative. This enticing omission from our collective 
knowledge has set many curious scientists on a journey to uncover 
some new detail which might shed light on existence itself.



RNA shares chemical components with DNA and is an essential precursor 
to the existence of life.


As the only life we know of is based on Earth, studies on life’s 
origins are limited to the specific conditions we find here. 
Therefore, most research in this area looks at the most basic 
components common to all known living things: ribonucleic acid, or 
RNA. This is a far simpler and more essential molecule than the more 
famous deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, that defines how we are put 
together. But RNA is still orders of magnitude more complex than the 
kinds of chemicals one tends to find floating around in space or 
stuck to the face of a lifeless planet.


RNA is a polymer, meaning it is made of chemical chains, in this case 
known as nucleotides. Researchers in this field have reason to 
believe that RNA no less than 40 to 100 nucleotides long is necessary 
for the self-replicating behavior required for life to exist. Given 
sufficient time, nucleotides can spontaneously connect to form RNA 
given the right chemical conditions. But current estimates suggest 
that magic number of 40 to 100 nucleotides should not have been 
possible in the volume of space we consider the observable universe.




Such estimates generally just assume pure random trials.  And they 
overlook the build up and availability of short chains if they're in a 
confined volume. Here's an actual experiment showing you don't need 40 
nucleotides to get replication:


/Letters to Nature//
//Nature 382, 525 - 528 (08 August 1996); doi:10.1038/382525a0//
//David H. Lee, Juan R. Granja, Jose A. Martinez, Kay Severin & M. Reza 
Ghadiri//
//Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and the Skaggs 
Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La 
Jolla, California 92037, USA//
//THE production of amino acids and their condensation to polypeptides 
under plausibly prebiotic conditions have long been known1,2. But 
despite the central importance of molecular self-replication in the 
origin of life, the feasibility of peptide self-replication has not been 
established experimenta

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:22 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 3/5/2020 10:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> In the full set of all 2^N branches there will, of course, be branches in
> which this is the case. But that is just because when every possible bit
> string is included, that possibility will also occur. The problem is that
> the proportion of branches for which this is the case becomes small as N
> increases.
>
>
> But not the proportion of branches which are within a fixed deviation from
> 2:1.  That proportion will increase with N.
>
> I can see that I'm going to have to write a program to produce and example
> for you.
>

I look forward to such a program -- my computer programming skills have
abandoned me..

The trouble is that my intuition does not stretch to what happens in the
branch multiplication situation -- I can convince myself either way

Kent covers this scenario in his paper (arxiv:0905.0624). He writes:

"Consider a replicating multiverse, with a machine like the first one, in
which branches arise as the result of technologically advanced beings
running simulations. Whenever the red button is pressed in a simulated
universe, that universe is deleted, and successor universes with outcomes 0
and 1 written on the tape are initiated. Suppose, in this case, that each
time, the beings create three identical simulations with outcome 0, and
just one with outcome 1. From the perspective of the inhabitants, there is
no way to detect that outcomes 0 and 1 are being treated differently, and
so they represent them in their theories with one branch each. In fact,
though, given this representation, there is an at least arguably natural
sense in which they ought to assign to the outcome 0 branch three times the
importance of the outcome 1 branch: in other words, they ought to assign
branch weights (3/4,1/4).

"They don't know this. But suppose that they believe that there are unknown
weights attached to the branches. What happens now? After N runs of the
experiment, there will actually be 4^N simulations, although in the
inhabitants' theoretical representation, these are represented by 2^N
branches. Of the 4^N simulation, almost all (for large N) will contain
close to 3N/4 zeros and N/4 ones."

This is where my intuition breaks down -- this is by no means obvious to
me, though I know that this is what you predicted for the 3:1 case we
discussed before. My problem with this conclusion is that there are only 2^
distinct bit strings of length N. So the 4^N simulations must contain a lot
of duplications. In fact, 4^N is immeasurably larger than 2^N: 4^N/2^N =
2^N. So there must be an infinite number of replicates as N --> oo. Why
should those bit strings with the ratio 4:1 of zeros to ones be favoured in
the duplications? Would not all strings be duplicated uniformly, so that
the 4^N simulations will contain exactly the same ratio of 4:1 ratio bit
strings as the original 2^N possible bit strings does. My intuition is
clearly different from Kent's and your's.

Now Kent goes on:
"Now, I think I can see how to run some, though not all, of an argument
that supports this conclusion. The branch importance measure defined by
inhabitants who find relative frequency 3/4 of zeros corresponds to the
counting measure on simulations. If we could argue, for instance by
appealing to symmetry, that each of the 4^N simulations is equally
important, then this branch importance measure would indeed be justified.
If we could also argue, perhaps using some form of anthropic reasoning,
that there is an equal chance of finding oneself in any of the 4^N
simulations, then the chance of finding oneself in a simulation in which
one concludes that the branch weights are (very close to) (3/4,1/4) would
be very close to one. ... There would indeed then seem to be a sense in
which the branch weights define which subsets of the branches are important
for theory confirmation.

"It seems hard to make this argument rigorous. In particular, the notion of
'chance of finding oneself' in a particular simulation doesn't seem easy to
define properly. Still, we have an arguable natural measure on simulations,
the counting measure, according to which most of the inhabitants will
arrive at (close to) the right theory of branch weights. That might perhaps
be progress."


It is clear that Kent is far from convinced by this. And I have indicated
that I am far from convinced even of things that Kent seems to find
intuitively obvious. This needs to be worked through more carefully -- I
remain unconvinced that branch duplication provides a way of getting
probabilities into the data.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM John Clark  wrote:

> This video just went online, I thought it was excellent:
>
> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

Impressive graphics, but the same oldsame old

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT_TFaC1htEsjoeqQpatJiB_CjeJvnrePba%2Brh95MvH5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:28:31 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 9:03:21 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Galactic clusters are the largest structures in the universe held 
>> together by gravity and the Ophiuchus Supercluster contains 4021 known 
>> galaxies, it's likely none of them contain life, much less intelligent 
>> life. Telescopes have seen evidence that the largest galaxy in the center 
>> of the cluster underwent a gargantuan explosion at least 240 million years 
>> earlier, it's 390 million light years away so the explosion happened at 
>> least 630 million years ago. It's thought that 270 million solar masses of 
>> gas and dust was sucked into the black hole at the center of the galaxy 
>> producing something equivalent to a supernova going off every month for a 
>> 100 million years. Something like that would probably sterilize not only 
>> the galaxy but the entire cluster. And Ophiuchus is relatively nearby so 
>> it's almost certain there are more distant clusters that suffered even 
>> larger explosions. It looks like the Milky Way has just been lucky.
>>
>> DISCOVERY OF A GIANT RADIO FOSSIL IN THE OPHIUCHUS GALAXY CLUSTER 
>> 
>>
>> John K Clark 
>>
>
> Even if life is terribly improbable, such as how nucleotides emerged or 
> even worse ribosomes, it did so in this galaxy. It is possible that biology 
> has been spread around this galaxy with asteroid impacts. Ejecta from such 
> impacts on a bio-active planet could send microbes on a long journey to 
> another planet. It is then plausible that biology is fairly common in this 
> galaxy, but not others.
>
> LC 
>

 

https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00094.html

Is life a game of chance? Study reveals life in the universe could be 
common, but not in our neighborhood Research news

To help answer one of the great existential questions - how did life begin? 
- a new study combines biological and cosmological models. Professor 
Tomonori Totani from the Department of Astronomy looked at how life’s 
building blocks could spontaneously form in the universe - a process known 
as abiogenesis.

If there’s one thing in the universe that is certain, it’s that life 
exists. It must have begun at some point in time, somewhere. But despite 
all we know from biology and physics, the exact details about how and when 
life began, and also whether it began elsewhere, are largely speculative. 
This enticing omission from our collective knowledge has set many curious 
scientists on a journey to uncover some new detail which might shed light 
on existence itself.

RNA shares chemical components with DNA and is an essential precursor to 
the existence of life.

As the only life we know of is based on Earth, studies on life’s origins 
are limited to the specific conditions we find here. Therefore, most 
research in this area looks at the most basic components common to all 
known living things: ribonucleic acid, or RNA. This is a far simpler and 
more essential molecule than the more famous deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, 
that defines how we are put together. But RNA is still orders of magnitude 
more complex than the kinds of chemicals one tends to find floating around 
in space or stuck to the face of a lifeless planet.

RNA is a polymer, meaning it is made of chemical chains, in this case known 
as nucleotides. Researchers in this field have reason to believe that RNA 
no less than 40 to 100 nucleotides long is necessary for the 
self-replicating behavior required for life to exist. Given sufficient 
time, nucleotides can spontaneously connect to form RNA given the right 
chemical conditions. But current estimates suggest that magic number of 40 
to 100 nucleotides should not have been possible in the volume of space we 
consider the observable universe.

A diagram to show the inflationary history of the universe. Image by NASA 
CC-0

“However, there is more to the universe than the observable,” said Totani. 
“In contemporary cosmology, it is agreed the universe underwent a period of 
rapid inflation producing a vast region of expansion beyond the horizon of 
what we can directly observe. Factoring this greater volume into models of 
abiogenesis hugely increases the chances of life occuring.”

Indeed, the observable universe contains about 10 sextillion (1022) stars. 
Statistically speaking, the matter in such a volume should only be able to 
produce RNA of about 20 nucleotides. But it’s calculated that, thanks to 
rapid inflation, the universe may contain more than 1 googol (10100) stars, 
and if this is the case then more complex, life-sustaining RNA structures 
are more than just probable, they’re practically inevitable.

“Like many in this field of research, I am driven by curiosity and by big 
questions,” said Totani. “Combining my recent investigation into RNA 
chemistry with my long history of cosmology leads me to realize there is 

Re: The Fermi Paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 9:03:21 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Galactic clusters are the largest structures in the universe held together 
> by gravity and the Ophiuchus Supercluster contains 4021 known galaxies, 
> it's likely none of them contain life, much less intelligent life. 
> Telescopes have seen evidence that the largest galaxy in the center of the 
> cluster underwent a gargantuan explosion at least 240 million years 
> earlier, it's 390 million light years away so the explosion happened at 
> least 630 million years ago. It's thought that 270 million solar masses of 
> gas and dust was sucked into the black hole at the center of the galaxy 
> producing something equivalent to a supernova going off every month for a 
> 100 million years. Something like that would probably sterilize not only 
> the galaxy but the entire cluster. And Ophiuchus is relatively nearby so 
> it's almost certain there are more distant clusters that suffered even 
> larger explosions. It looks like the Milky Way has just been lucky.
>
> DISCOVERY OF A GIANT RADIO FOSSIL IN THE OPHIUCHUS GALAXY CLUSTER 
> 
>
> John K Clark 
>

Even if life is terribly improbable, such as how nucleotides emerged or 
even worse ribosomes, it did so in this galaxy. It is possible that biology 
has been spread around this galaxy with asteroid impacts. Ejecta from such 
impacts on a bio-active planet could send microbes on a long journey to 
another planet. It is then plausible that biology is fairly common in this 
galaxy, but not others.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f32ec974-b4df-4e80-afe1-4149d3e3044d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:57:34 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> While programming/computing in (hypothetical) infinite domains is 
> interesting ...
>
> *Computing in Cantor’s Paradise With λ_ZFC*
> https://jeapostrophe.github.io/home/static/toronto-2012flops.pdf
>
> how any of this relates *in any way* to physical reality (the *stuff of 
> nature *that is *actually around us* in the universe, vs. just some 
> theoretical, mathematical concoction someone may come up with) is dubious.
>
> (Things like consciousness is another thing, or subject: It may be 
> "beyond" Turing, bit in a way that has nothing to do with "super" or 
> "hyper" Turing or Cantor or Godel.)
>
> @philipthrift
>

λ-calculus is equivalent to Turing computation. In fact it is similar to 
Assembly language. It might be that some of these problems could be looked 
at according to λ-calculus.

LC
 

>
> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:40:08 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Szangolies [ J. Szangolies, "Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of 
>> Quantum Mechanics," https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10668  ] works a form of 
>> the Cantor diagonalization for quantum measurements. As yet a full up form 
>> of the CHSH or Bell inequality violation result is waiting. There are 
>> exciting possibilities for connections between quantum mechanics, in 
>> particular the subject of quantum decoherence and measurement, and Gödel’s 
>> theorem. 
>>
>> If we think of all physics as a form of convex sets of states, then there 
>> are dualisms of measures p and q that obey 1/p + 1/q = 1. For quantum 
>> mechanics this is p = ½ as an L^2 measure theory. It then has a 
>> corresponding q = ½ measure system that I think is spacetime physics. A 
>> straight probability system has p = 1, sum of probabilities as unity, and 
>> the corresponding q → ∞ has no measure or distribution system. This is any 
>> deterministic system, think completely localized, that can be a Turing 
>> machine, Conway's Game of life or classical mechanics. A quantum 
>> measurement is a transition between p = ½ for QM and ∞ for classicality or 
>> 1 for classical probability on a fundamental level.
>>
>> What separates these different convex sets are these topological 
>> obstructions, such as the indices given by the Kirwan polytope. The 
>> distinction between entanglements is also given by these topological 
>> indices or obstructions. How these determine a measurement outcome, or the 
>> ontology of an element of a decoherent sets is not decidable. This is where 
>> Gödel’s theorem enters in. A quantum measurement is a way that quantum 
>> information or qubits encode other qubits as Gödel numbers.
>>
>> The prospect spacetime, or the entropy of spacetime via event horizon 
>> areas, is a condensate or large N-entanglement of quantum states then 
>> implies there is a connection between quantum computation and information 
>> accessible in spacetime configurations. These configurations may either be 
>> the Bekenstein bound S = kA/4ℓ_p^2, or quantum modified version S = 
>> kA/4ℓ_p^2 + quantum corrections. Then the quantum processing or quantum 
>> Church-Turing thesis is I think equivalent to the information processing of 
>> spacetime as black holes and maybe entire cosmologies.
>>
>> These are exciting developments.
>>
>> LC
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbe488a7-ceb5-4955-b4b3-1a6faaf3032d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/6/2020 3:40 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Szangolies [ J. Szangolies, "Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of 
> Quantum Mechanics," https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10668  ] works a form of 
> the Cantor diagonalization for quantum measurements. As yet a full up form 
> of the CHSH or Bell inequality violation result is waiting. There are 
> exciting possibilities for connections between quantum mechanics, in 
> particular the subject of quantum decoherence and measurement, and Gödel’s 
> theorem. 
>
> If we think of all physics as a form of convex sets of states, then there 
> are dualisms of measures p and q that obey 1/p + 1/q = 1. For quantum 
> mechanics this is p = ½ as an L^2 measure theory. It then has a 
> corresponding q = ½ 
>
>
> Which would give 1/p + 1/q = 4 ??
>
> Brent
>
>
Oops, I meant p = 2 and q = 2.

LC
 

> measure system that I think is spacetime physics. A straight probability 
> system has p = 1, sum of probabilities as unity, and the corresponding q → 
> ∞ has no measure or distribution system. This is any deterministic system, 
> think completely localized, that can be a Turing machine, Conway's Game 
> of life or classical mechanics. A quantum measurement is a transition 
> between p = ½ for QM and ∞ for classicality or 1 for classical probability 
> on a fundamental level.
>
> What separates these different convex sets are these topological 
> obstructions, such as the indices given by the Kirwan polytope. The 
> distinction between entanglements is also given by these topological 
> indices or obstructions. How these determine a measurement outcome, or the 
> ontology of an element of a decoherent sets is not decidable. This is where 
> Gödel’s theorem enters in. A quantum measurement is a way that quantum 
> information or qubits encode other qubits as Gödel numbers.
>
> The prospect spacetime, or the entropy of spacetime via event horizon 
> areas, is a condensate or large N-entanglement of quantum states then 
> implies there is a connection between quantum computation and information 
> accessible in spacetime configurations. These configurations may either be 
> the Bekenstein bound S = kA/4ℓ_p^2, or quantum modified version S = 
> kA/4ℓ_p^2 + quantum corrections. Then the quantum processing or quantum 
> Church-Turing thesis is I think equivalent to the information processing of 
> spacetime as black holes and maybe entire cosmologies.
>
> These are exciting developments.
>
> LC
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d684c57-3761-4867-8baf-5f2807d2af9f%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9dbab30f-faed-4f24-91cf-abbf5d264340%40googlegroups.com.

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[John Clark]

This video just went online, I thought it was excellent:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2FuEqnBdJQJMQjD9xhDDzkJ-PKeJ759H0yAopbhVeL6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/6/2020 3:40 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
Szangolies [ J. Szangolies, "Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of 
Quantum Mechanics," https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10668  ] works a form 
of the Cantor diagonalization for quantum measurements. As yet a full 
up form of the CHSH or Bell inequality violation result is waiting. 
There are exciting possibilities for connections between quantum 
mechanics, in particular the subject of quantum decoherence and 
measurement, and Gödel’s theorem.


If we think of all physics as a form of convex sets of states, then 
there are dualisms of measures p and q that obey 1/p + 1/q = 1. For 
quantum mechanics this is p = ½ as an L^2 measure theory. It then has 
a corresponding q = ½


Which would give 1/p + 1/q = 4 ??

Brent

measure system that I think is spacetime physics. A straight 
probability system has p = 1, sum of probabilities as unity, and the 
corresponding q → ∞ has no measure or distribution system. This is any 
deterministic system, think completely localized, that can be a Turing 
machine, Conway's Game of life or classical mechanics. A 
quantum measurement is a transition between p = ½ for QM and ∞ for 
classicality or 1 for classical probability on a fundamental level.


What separates these different convex sets are these topological 
obstructions, such as the indices given by the Kirwan polytope. The 
distinction between entanglements is also given by these topological 
indices or obstructions. How these determine a measurement outcome, or 
the ontology of an element of a decoherent sets is not decidable. This 
is where Gödel’s theorem enters in. A quantum measurement is a way 
that quantum information or qubits encode other qubits as Gödel numbers.


The prospect spacetime, or the entropy of spacetime via event horizon 
areas, is a condensate or large N-entanglement of quantum states then 
implies there is a connection between quantum computation and 
information accessible in spacetime configurations. These 
configurations may either be the Bekenstein bound S = kA/4ℓ_p^2, or 
quantum modified version S = kA/4ℓ_p^2 + quantum corrections. Then the 
quantum processing or quantum Church-Turing thesis is I think 
equivalent to the information processing of spacetime as black holes 
and maybe entire cosmologies.


These are exciting developments.

LC

--
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d684c57-3761-4867-8baf-5f2807d2af9f%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/16f1176b-487c-273c-6be7-09f1b4afadb7%40verizon.net.

Why physics has become fantasy fiction

[Philip Thrift]

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll
·
What really happens to Schrödinger’s cat is that it becomes entangled with 
its environment, so that the wave function comes to describe multiple 
almost-classical worlds! Happens to all of us, and nicely explained in this 
@veritasium video.

https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1235999175428333568

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a5655ca-7611-48c1-b29e-fa4f166ad691%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[ronaldheld]

interesting responses I did expect.   From the physical universe POV, CT is 
relevant?

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bbf2e91-b6c8-484a-9549-be9293cf7de4%40googlegroups.com.

The Fermi Paradox

[John Clark]

Galactic clusters are the largest structures in the universe held together
by gravity and the Ophiuchus Supercluster contains 4021 known galaxies,
it's likely none of them contain life, much less intelligent life.
Telescopes have seen evidence that the largest galaxy in the center of the
cluster underwent a gargantuan explosion at least 240 million years
earlier, it's 390 million light years away so the explosion happened at
least 630 million years ago. It's thought that 270 million solar masses of
gas and dust was sucked into the black hole at the center of the galaxy
producing something equivalent to a supernova going off every month for a
100 million years. Something like that would probably sterilize not only
the galaxy but the entire cluster. And Ophiuchus is relatively nearby so
it's almost certain there are more distant clusters that suffered even
larger explosions. It looks like the Milky Way has just been lucky.

DISCOVERY OF A GIANT RADIO FOSSIL IN THE OPHIUCHUS GALAXY CLUSTER


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Enh8qTZdVOHG9z0%3DBxc_n7_R61fj8k0cz6kUS6MqK9g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Philip Thrift]

While programming/computing in (hypothetical) infinite domains is 
interesting ...

*Computing in Cantor’s Paradise With λ_ZFC*
https://jeapostrophe.github.io/home/static/toronto-2012flops.pdf

how any of this relates *in any way* to physical reality (the *stuff of 
nature *that is *actually around us* in the universe, vs. just some 
theoretical, mathematical concoction someone may come up with) is dubious.

(Things like consciousness is another thing, or subject: It may be "beyond" 
Turing, bit in a way that has nothing to do with "super" or "hyper" Turing 
or Cantor or Godel.)

@philipthrift

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:40:08 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Szangolies [ J. Szangolies, "Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of 
> Quantum Mechanics," https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10668  ] works a form of 
> the Cantor diagonalization for quantum measurements. As yet a full up form 
> of the CHSH or Bell inequality violation result is waiting. There are 
> exciting possibilities for connections between quantum mechanics, in 
> particular the subject of quantum decoherence and measurement, and Gödel’s 
> theorem. 
>
> If we think of all physics as a form of convex sets of states, then there 
> are dualisms of measures p and q that obey 1/p + 1/q = 1. For quantum 
> mechanics this is p = ½ as an L^2 measure theory. It then has a 
> corresponding q = ½ measure system that I think is spacetime physics. A 
> straight probability system has p = 1, sum of probabilities as unity, and 
> the corresponding q → ∞ has no measure or distribution system. This is any 
> deterministic system, think completely localized, that can be a Turing 
> machine, Conway's Game of life or classical mechanics. A quantum 
> measurement is a transition between p = ½ for QM and ∞ for classicality or 
> 1 for classical probability on a fundamental level.
>
> What separates these different convex sets are these topological 
> obstructions, such as the indices given by the Kirwan polytope. The 
> distinction between entanglements is also given by these topological 
> indices or obstructions. How these determine a measurement outcome, or the 
> ontology of an element of a decoherent sets is not decidable. This is where 
> Gödel’s theorem enters in. A quantum measurement is a way that quantum 
> information or qubits encode other qubits as Gödel numbers.
>
> The prospect spacetime, or the entropy of spacetime via event horizon 
> areas, is a condensate or large N-entanglement of quantum states then 
> implies there is a connection between quantum computation and information 
> accessible in spacetime configurations. These configurations may either be 
> the Bekenstein bound S = kA/4ℓ_p^2, or quantum modified version S = 
> kA/4ℓ_p^2 + quantum corrections. Then the quantum processing or quantum 
> Church-Turing thesis is I think equivalent to the information processing of 
> spacetime as black holes and maybe entire cosmologies.
>
> These are exciting developments.
>
> LC
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5dbd538d-bdcd-4935-b22d-ac3f1d94662d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Lawrence Crowell]

Szangolies [ J. Szangolies, "Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of 
Quantum Mechanics," https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10668  ] works a form of the 
Cantor diagonalization for quantum measurements. As yet a full up form of 
the CHSH or Bell inequality violation result is waiting. There are exciting 
possibilities for connections between quantum mechanics, in particular the 
subject of quantum decoherence and measurement, and Gödel’s theorem. 

If we think of all physics as a form of convex sets of states, then there 
are dualisms of measures p and q that obey 1/p + 1/q = 1. For quantum 
mechanics this is p = ½ as an L^2 measure theory. It then has a 
corresponding q = ½ measure system that I think is spacetime physics. A 
straight probability system has p = 1, sum of probabilities as unity, and 
the corresponding q → ∞ has no measure or distribution system. This is any 
deterministic system, think completely localized, that can be a Turing 
machine, Conway's Game of life or classical mechanics. A quantum 
measurement is a transition between p = ½ for QM and ∞ for classicality or 
1 for classical probability on a fundamental level.

What separates these different convex sets are these topological 
obstructions, such as the indices given by the Kirwan polytope. The 
distinction between entanglements is also given by these topological 
indices or obstructions. How these determine a measurement outcome, or the 
ontology of an element of a decoherent sets is not decidable. This is where 
Gödel’s theorem enters in. A quantum measurement is a way that quantum 
information or qubits encode other qubits as Gödel numbers.

The prospect spacetime, or the entropy of spacetime via event horizon 
areas, is a condensate or large N-entanglement of quantum states then 
implies there is a connection between quantum computation and information 
accessible in spacetime configurations. These configurations may either be 
the Bekenstein bound S = kA/4ℓ_p^2, or quantum modified version S = 
kA/4ℓ_p^2 + quantum corrections. Then the quantum processing or quantum 
Church-Turing thesis is I think equivalent to the information processing of 
spacetime as black holes and maybe entire cosmologies.

These are exciting developments.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d684c57-3761-4867-8baf-5f2807d2af9f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Philip Thrift]

*Quantum mechanics places limits on what can be observed. Further, while it 
is deterministic wave theory, outcomes of specific measurements are purely 
stochastic.*
https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Crowell_fqxi_2020.pdf


The "deterministic wave theory" is one of the biggest mistakes in the 
history of theoretical physics. To get rid of this error, it should be 
formulated in terms of its foundational mathematics as a *stochastic* 
theory.

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/70797/1/Wilkes-H-2019-PhD-Thesis.pdf

I don't think quantum theory - or quantum+gravity/spacetime theory - will 
ever have anything to do with Church-Turing,  or Gödel,  or Cantor's 
Paradise, ...


@philipthrift

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 9:01:38 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> There seems to be a bit of a gell-mould setting that is at work. This and 
> related ideas are appearing in a number of places. Read my paper on the 
> FQXi contest
>
> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3392
>
> and my final comment has a loose summary of some of this. The MIC = ER is 
> interesting as well, and I am carving out a time next week to seriously 
> study this. I think the domain of computation there has a connection with 
> Hogarth-Malament spacetimes and the role of epistemic horizons, whether 
> topological obstructions with quantum entanglements or event horizons, this 
> appears to present barriers that protect the Church-Turing thesis. 
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 5:42:27 AM UTC-6, ronaldheld wrote:
>>
>> Any comments, especially from Bruno, and the Physicalists?
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/198935b6-df5c-451a-a332-9fbbf4dbb48a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Mar 2020, at 12:42, ronaldheld  wrote:
> 
> Any comments, especially from Bruno, and the Physicalists?

Hmm… this is the “quantum Church-Turing thesis”, but OK it is from Susskind, 
which I often appreciate to read or listen too.
I will read it and comment next week. 
(Busy day, Sorry), 

Good Week-End!

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff950ee5-b253-464e-b0aa-9eca73399b9c%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> <2003.01807.pdf>

-- 
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8051F74B-FA95-4FC3-9CF0-9661EED102FA%40ulb.ac.be.