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

2020-03-07 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:32 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:44:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > That is, in fact, false. It does not generate the same strings as
> flipping a
> > coin in single world. Sure, each of the strings in Everett could have
> been
> > obtained from coin flips -- but then the probability of a sequence of
> 10,000
> > heads is very low, whereas in many-worlds you are guaranteed that one
> observer
> > will obtain this sequence. There is a profound difference between the two
> > cases.
>
> You have made this statement multiple times, and it appears to be at
> the heart of our disagreement. I don't see what the profound
> difference is.
>
> If I select a subset from the set of all strings of length N, for example
> all strings with exactly N/3 1s, then I get a quite specific value for the
> proportion of the whole that match it:
>
> / N \
> || 2^{-N}  = p.
> \N/3/
>
> Now this number p will also equal the probability of seeing exactly
> N/3 coins land head up when N coins are tossed.
>
> What is the profound difference?
>


Take a more extreme case. The probability of getting 1000 heads on 1000
coin tosses is 1/2^1000.
If you measure the spin components of an ensemble of identical spin-half
particles, there will certainly be one observer who sees 1000 spin-up
results. That is the difference -- the difference between probability of
1/2^1000 and a probability of one.

In fact in a recent podcast by Sean Carroll (that has been discussed on the
list previously), he makes the statement that this rare event (with
probability p = 1/2^1000) certainly occurs. In other words, he is claiming
 that the probability is both 1/2^1000 and one. That this is a flat
contradiction appears to escape him. The difference in probabilities
between coin tosses and Everettian measurements couldn't be more stark.

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/CAFxXSLQC%3DCTYjUbZ4BHE78YuUrMTWkOHEV_%3DW6LB4Q4_pJ-SyA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2020-03-07 Thread Russell Standish 
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:45:38PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:26 PM Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> 
> But a very large proportion of them (→1 as N→∞) will report being
> within ε (called a confidence interval) of 50% for any given ε>0
> chosen at the outset of the experiment. This is simply the law of
> large numbers theorem. You can't focus on the vanishingly small
> population that lie outside the confidence interval.
> 
> 
> This is wrong.

Them's fighting words. Prove it!

> In the binary situation where both outcomes occur for every
> trial, there are 2^N binary sequences for N repetitions of the experiment. 
> This
> set of binary sequences exhausts the possibilities, so the same sequence is
> obtained for any two-component initial state -- regardless of the amplitudes.

> You appear to assume that the natural probability in this situation is p = 0.5
> and, what is more, your appeal to the law of large numbers applies only for
> single-world probabilities, in which there is only one outcome on each trial.

I didn't mention proability once in the above paragraph, not even
implicitly. I used the term "proportion". That the proportion will be
equal to the probability in a single universe case is a frequentist
assumption, and should be uncontroversial, but goes beyond what I
stated above.

> 
> In order to infer a probability of p = 0.5, your branch data must have
> approximately equal numbers of zeros and ones. The number of branches with
> equal numbers of zeros and ones is given by the binomial coefficient. For 
> large
> even N = 2M trials, this coefficient is N!/M!*M!. Using the Stirling
> approximation to the factorial for large N, this goes as 2^N/sqrt(N) (within
> factors of order one). Since there are 2^N sequences, the proportion with n_0 
> =
> n_1 vanishes as 1/sqrt(N) for N large. 

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the proportion of
sequences whose ratio of 0 bits to 1 bits lie within ε of 0.5, rather
than the proportion of sequences that have exactly equal 0 or 1
bits. That proportion grows as sqrt N.


> 
> Now sequences with small departures from equal numbers will still give
> probabilities within the confidence interval of p = 0.5. But this confidence
> interval also shrinks as 1/sqrt(N) as N increases, so these additional
> sequences do not contribute a growing number of cases giving p ~ 0.5 as N
> increases.

The confidence interval ε is fixed.

So, again within factors of order unity, the proportion of sequences
> consistent with p = 0.5 decreases without limit as N increases. So it is not
> the case that a very large proportion of the binary strings will report p =
> 0.5. The proportion lying outside the confidence interval of p = 0.5 is not
> vanishingly small -- it grows with N.
> 
> 
> 
> > The crux of the matter is that all branches are equivalent when both
> outcomes
> > occur on every trial, so all observers will infer that their observed
> relative
> > frequencies reflect the actual probabilities. Since there are observers
> for all
> > possibilities for p in the range [0,1], and not all can be correct, no
> sensible
> > probability value can be assigned to such duplication experiments.
> 
> I don't see why not. Faced with a coin flip toss, I would assume a
> 50/50 chance of seeing heads or tails. Faced with a history of 100
> heads, I might start to investigate the coin for bias, and perhaps by
> Bayesian arguments give the biased coin theory greater weight than the
> theory that I've just experience a 1 in 2^100 event, but in any case
> it is just statistics, and it is the same whether all oputcomes have
> been realised or not.
> 
> 
> The trouble with this analogy is that coin tosses are single-world events --
> there is only one outcome for each toss. Consequently, any intuitions about
> probabilities based on such comparisons are not relevant to the Everettian 
> case
> in which every outcome occurs for every toss. Your intuition that it is the
> same whether all outcomes are realised or not is simply mistaken.
> 
> 
> > The problem is even worse in quantum mechanics, where you measure a 
> state
> such
> > as
> >
> >      |psi> = a|0> + b|1>.
> >
> > When both outcomes occur on every trial, the result of a sequence of N
> trials
> > is all possible binary strings of length N, (all 2^N of them). You then
> notice
> > that this set of all possible strings is obtained whatever non-zero
> values of a
> > and b you assume. The assignment of some propbability relation to the
> > coefficients is thus seen to be meaningless -- all probabilities occur
> equal
> > for any non-zero choices of a and b.
> >
> 
> For the outcome of any particular binary string, sure. But if we
> classify the outcome strings - say ones with a recognisable pattern,
> or when replayed through a CD pl

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

2020-03-07 Thread Russell Standish 
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:44:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:

> 
> 
> That is, in fact, false. It does not generate the same strings as flipping a
> coin in single world. Sure, each of the strings in Everett could have been
> obtained from coin flips -- but then the probability of a sequence of 10,000
> heads is very low, whereas in many-worlds you are guaranteed that one observer
> will obtain this sequence. There is a profound difference between the two
> cases.

You have made this statement multiple times, and it appears to be at
the heart of our disagreement. I don't see what the profound
difference is.

If I select a subset from the set of all strings of length N, for example all 
strings with exactly N/3 1s, then I get a quite specific value for the 
proportion of the whole that match it:

/ N \
|| 2^{-N}  = p.
\N/3/

Now this number p will also equal the probability of seeing exactly
N/3 coins land head up when N coins are tossed.

What is the profound difference?

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20200308062905.GZ2903%40zen.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 



On 3/7/2020 8:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 3/7/2020 7:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems,
such as forward (or backward?) in time signaling.


Ruth Kastner has tried to fix that by postulating a possibility
space where the offer wave elicits the answer wave; so it's not in
spacetime.



Possibility space sounds very much like magical space, where anything 
you want to happen can happen.


No, it's like the wave function where possibilities are encoded with 
amplitudes.  The essential idea isn't the possibility space, it's the 
idea that "events" which are interactions that transfer energy really 
happen.  This takes the place of decoherence and collapse of the wave 
function.


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/661c98f1-4a3c-832e-f4bf-dba8f2bf83e3%40verizon.net.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 3/7/2020 7:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems, such as
> forward (or backward?) in time signaling.
>
>
> Ruth Kastner has tried to fix that by postulating a possibility space
> where the offer wave elicits the answer wave; so it's not in spacetime.
>


Possibility space sounds very much like magical space, where anything you
want to happen can happen..

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/CAFxXSLQYge8EfzLE0T%3DO4jUxfHw9bEEU5CZKh5cEnQEJ%2BbqQjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 



On 3/7/2020 7:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:33:05 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 3/7/2020 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
wrote:


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


I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies,
but I can't recall what they were. Many of the quantum
paradoxes arise due to a particular interpretation of
superposition, namely, that all alternatives happen
simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition
be interpreted to mean that each alternative has a
probability of occurrence and nothing more? TIA, AG


In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly
what it means.


The problem is saying exactly when the Schroedinger equation stops
describing the evolution and the alternative happens, i.e. the wf
collapses.  In QBism it's when you learn the result and you update
your knowledge.  In the Transactional interpretation it's when an
interaction is realized.  I think Zurek's quantum Darwinism could
be given this interpretation: when the cross terms in the pointer
basis become sufficiently small.

Brent


I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems, such 
as forward (or backward?) in time signaling.


Ruth Kastner has tried to fix that by postulating a possibility space 
where the offer wave elicits the answer wave; so it's not in spacetime.


Does a comparable problem arise when using Heisenberg's formulation of 
QM? AG


Matrix mechanics is equivalent to Schoedinger's equation, so I think it 
has the same problem of having an evolution phase and a measurement phase.


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/c60275da-93a4-4060-f718-97871d3ebf8d%40verizon.net.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread Alan Grayson 


On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:33:05 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/7/2020 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies, but I can't 
>> recall what they were. Many of the quantum paradoxes arise due to a 
>> particular interpretation of superposition, namely, that all alternatives 
>> happen simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition be 
>> interpreted to mean that each alternative has a probability of occurrence 
>> and nothing more? TIA, AG 
>>
>
> In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly what it 
> means.
>
>
> The problem is saying exactly when the Schroedinger equation stops 
> describing the evolution and the alternative happens, i.e. the wf 
> collapses.  In QBism it's when you learn the result and you update your 
> knowledge.  In the Transactional interpretation it's when an interaction is 
> realized.  I think Zurek's quantum Darwinism could be given this 
> interpretation: when the cross terms in the pointer basis become 
> sufficiently small.
>
> Brent
>

I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems, such as 
forward (or backward?) in time signaling. Does a comparable problem arise 
when using Heisenberg's formulation of QM? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/966b7008-64b1-42f4-ac9c-1cb21c880f97%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 



On 3/7/2020 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:


On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:


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


I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies, but I
can't recall what they were. Many of the quantum paradoxes arise
due to a particular interpretation of superposition, namely, that
all alternatives happen simultaneously (before measurement). Why
can't superposition be interpreted to mean that each alternative
has a probability of occurrence and nothing more? TIA, AG


In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly what it 
means.


The problem is saying exactly when the Schroedinger equation stops 
describing the evolution and the alternative happens, i.e. the wf 
collapses.  In QBism it's when you learn the result and you update your 
knowledge.  In the Transactional interpretation it's when an interaction 
is realized.  I think Zurek's quantum Darwinism could be given this 
interpretation: when the cross terms in the pointer basis become 
sufficiently small.


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/faf7d6d5-adde-03ce-3be1-6b999da7b637%40verizon.net.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread Alan Grayson 


On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies, but I can't 
>> recall what they were. Many of the quantum paradoxes arise due to a 
>> particular interpretation of superposition, namely, that all alternatives 
>> happen simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition be 
>> interpreted to mean that each alternative has a probability of occurrence 
>> and nothing more? TIA, AG 
>>
>
> In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly what it 
> means.
>
> Bruce
>

So why not leave it at that? What's the reason some go beyond this which 
creates unresolvable issues? Presumably, if it's just epistemic, no need to 
worry about collapse and how it happens. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/da404fc5-a941-4fb5-adb2-c0a907f1079c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies, but I can't
> recall what they were. Many of the quantum paradoxes arise due to a
> particular interpretation of superposition, namely, that all alternatives
> happen simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition be
> interpreted to mean that each alternative has a probability of occurrence
> and nothing more? TIA, AG
>

In a collapse or an epistemic interpretation, that is exactly what it means.

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/CAFxXSLQXrd6z3qhM2drD0rb5tqP6ByEkHCTLJjE_TcRnF79HMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

2020-03-07 Thread Alan Grayson 


On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> 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
>

I've  asked this before and might have gotten some replies, but I can't 
recall what they were. Many of the quantum paradoxes arise due to a 
particular interpretation of superposition, namely, that all alternatives 
happen simultaneously (before measurement). Why can't superposition be 
interpreted to mean that each alternative has a probability of occurrence 
and nothing more? TIA, 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9884e6fc-2691-4a3b-b316-83ce3c67c95c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 2:47:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/7/2020 4:05 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 7:51:10 PM UTC-6, Brent 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
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> The question on whether QM has an infinite or finite Hilbert space can be 
> addressed with the existence of event horizons. The cosmological event 
> horizon puts a limit. Consider a Planck scale quantum state that has been 
> redshifted to the cosmological horizon scale. This is a ratio of around 
> 10^{60} and from the FLRW this leads to a distance of around 1800 billion 
> light years. Since this defines a finite region this means the Hilbert 
> space accessible to any observer is finite, even if enormously large. Even 
> if the global Hilbert space is infinite, observers are fundamentally local 
> and the amount of quantum information accessible is finite. To take this 
> further, with inflationary cosmology the cosmological event horizon on the 
> high energy vacuum was only 10^2 or 10^3 Planck units of radius the large 
> number of quantum states that appear accessible on the low energy physical 
> vacuum are an enormous redundancy. 
>
> At around 1:14 Carroll gets to brass-tacks on this issue with the horn. 
> The idea in MWI is then "everything happens that can happen," which some 
> people find difficult. In effect even though there is a probability weight 
> with each possible branch, an observer that witnesses a highly improbable 
> quantum event has this sense they are on a split branch and have no post 
> collapse information about a prior probability. MWI has the concept of a 
> cosmic wave function, but this sense of there being only two outcomes 
> reflects a lack of counterfactual definite reasoning tied to objective 
> probabilities. As a result these branches occur in a certain nonlocal 
> sense. 
>
> Is this at all demonstrable? No, counterfactual definite reasoning and the 
> existence of a global wave are not demonstrable. There are forms of 
> horizons, in general a form of epistemic horizon, which are a 
> generalization of the inaccessibility of information in QM and with general 
> relativity and event horizons. So whether there is or is not a global 
> cosmological wave function is a metaphysical choice of an analyst. 
> Generally ψ-ontological interpretations have a global cosmic wave function, 
> but a subset of those with a hidden variable interpretation also have 
> counterfactualism. 
>
> As Carroll points out there are four major types of interpretations, MWI 
> and deBroglie-Bohm, both ψ-ontic but with and without counterfactualism, 
> and Qubism and dynamic collapse that are ψ-epistemic. Qubism has some 
> advantages, but it leads to odd ideas that are almost solipsism. Dynamic 
> collapse and related idea of stochastic QM have wave functions just 
> spontaneously collapse and the more entangled the system is the more 
> frequent this will happen. 
>
>
> Isn't the Transactional Interpretation a kind of dynamic collapse, in 
> which a possibility is actualized by the absorbtion of energy or 
> information?
>
> Brent
>
>
It is not an idea I know that well. The idea is that a quantum wave ψ is 
the time forwards state and its complex conjugate ψ* is advanced. It is a 
sort of quantum variant on the Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory. The 
collapse of a wave function is then in some ways real and not swept away as 
a phenom as in MWI. 

These quantum interpretations are emerging and multiplying like bunnies. As 
I see it if these are a manifestation of a qubit version of Turing's 
theorem these are then incomplete and auxiliary axioms. Frankly the best 
thing to do is to give light consideration to any of these and mostly shut 
up and calculate.

LC
 

> I have certain issues there with how to treat coherent states such as with 
> lasers or with condensates of states. In general one can pick and choose, 
> and these are available for those who want to think of certain problems in 
> a certain framework. I think frankly that QM decoherence, and by extension 
> a measurement, amounts to a sort of Gödel numbering of quantum bits by 
> quantum bits. I see all of these interpretations of QM then as a sort of 
> incompleteness or inconsistency that results by trying to impose a certain 
> question or proposition on QM that is not decidable.
>
> LC
> --

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Alan Grayson 


On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 4:17:34 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> This video just went online, I thought it was excellent: 
>
> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

As you know, I believe our universe is shaped like a hyper-sphere. With 
this in mind, perhaps the best tentative evidence for other worlds is the 
fact that distant galaxies are moving in unison in the direction of what is 
hypothesized as "The Great Attractor". But maybe what we're observing is 
the rotation of our universe. Rotations are caused by glancing blows, and 
in this case, the glancing blow might be another universe. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ca27229c-1519-469d-91b2-0e5701add23a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 2:13:58 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *after the so called Hadean period of mass bombardment life emerged within 
>> a few 100 million years. Given that time periods tend to telescope the 
>> early you go in geological history this is fairly quick. *
>
>
> Given that we have only one example to work with there is no way of 
> knowing if that is typical or not. Life could have Evolved freakishly 
> quickly on Earth because in at least one way we know the example is not 
> typical, not only did it eventually produce life it eventually produced 
> intelligent life. And bacteria only planets must far outnumber amoeba 
> planets, and amoeba planets must far outnumber worm planets, and worm 
> planets must far outnumber monkey planets, and monkey planets must far 
> outnumber planets with beings who make radio telescopes. I think the most 
> obvious explanation for the Fermi Paradox is probably the correct one, 
> we're the first, after all somebody has to be.
>
>  John K Clark
>

Or we are extremely rare. I suspect that biological planets are rare, and 
those with the sort of "bio-exuberance" seen here are even rarer. It could 
be that statistically the nearest ETI capable of observing the universe is 
100 million light years away, or if in the Milky Way 100 million years in 
the past or future.

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/653fa643-51ca-4654-9bc3-bf69439f1c75%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 



On 3/7/2020 4:05 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 7:51:10 PM UTC-6, Brent 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


Brent


The question on whether QM has an infinite or finite Hilbert space can 
be addressed with the existence of event horizons. The cosmological 
event horizon puts a limit. Consider a Planck scale quantum state that 
has been redshifted to the cosmological horizon scale. This is a ratio 
of around 10^{60} and from the FLRW this leads to a distance of around 
1800 billion light years. Since this defines a finite region this 
means the Hilbert space accessible to any observer is finite, even if 
enormously large. Even if the global Hilbert space is infinite, 
observers are fundamentally local and the amount of quantum 
information accessible is finite. To take this further, with 
inflationary cosmology the cosmological event horizon on the high 
energy vacuum was only 10^2 or 10^3 Planck units of radius the large 
number of quantum states that appear accessible on the low energy 
physical vacuum are an enormous redundancy.


At around 1:14 Carroll gets to brass-tacks on this issue with the 
horn. The idea in MWI is then "everything happens that can happen," 
which some people find difficult. In effect even though there is a 
probability weight with each possible branch, an observer that 
witnesses a highly improbable quantum event has this sense they are on 
a split branch and have no post collapse information about a prior 
probability. MWI has the concept of a cosmic wave function, but this 
sense of there being only two outcomes reflects a lack of 
counterfactual definite reasoning tied to objective probabilities. As 
a result these branches occur in a certain nonlocal sense.


Is this at all demonstrable? No, counterfactual definite reasoning and 
the existence of a global wave are not demonstrable. There are forms 
of horizons, in general a form of epistemic horizon, which are a 
generalization of the inaccessibility of information in QM and with 
general relativity and event horizons. So whether there is or is not a 
global cosmological wave function is a metaphysical choice of an 
analyst. Generally ψ-ontological interpretations have a global cosmic 
wave function, but a subset of those with a hidden variable 
interpretation also have counterfactualism.


As Carroll points out there are four major types of interpretations, 
MWI and deBroglie-Bohm, both ψ-ontic but with and without 
counterfactualism, and Qubism and dynamic collapse that 
are ψ-epistemic. Qubism has some advantages, but it leads to odd ideas 
that are almost solipsism. Dynamic collapse and related idea of 
stochastic QM have wave functions just spontaneously collapse and the 
more entangled the system is the more frequent this will happen.


Isn't the Transactional Interpretation a kind of dynamic collapse, in 
which a possibility is actualized by the absorbtion of energy or 
information?


Brent

I have certain issues there with how to treat coherent states such as 
with lasers or with condensates of states. In general one can pick and 
choose, and these are available for those who want to think of certain 
problems in a certain framework. I think frankly that QM decoherence, 
and by extension a measurement, amounts to a sort of Gödel numbering 
of quantum bits by quantum bits. I see all of these interpretations of 
QM then as a sort of incompleteness or inconsistency that results by 
trying to impose a certain question or proposition on QM that is not 
decidable.


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/a65f1c1d-2d39-4690-81fb-be2dd41e6ecf%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+uns

Re: The Fermi Paradox

2020-03-07 Thread John Clark 
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*after the so called Hadean period of mass bombardment life emerged within
> a few 100 million years. Given that time periods tend to telescope the
> early you go in geological history this is fairly quick. *


Given that we have only one example to work with there is no way of knowing
if that is typical or not. Life could have Evolved freakishly quickly on
Earth because in at least one way we know the example is not typical, not
only did it eventually produce life it eventually produced intelligent
life. And bacteria only planets must far outnumber amoeba planets, and
amoeba planets must far outnumber worm planets, and worm planets must far
outnumber monkey planets, and monkey planets must far outnumber planets
with beings who make radio telescopes. I think the most obvious explanation
for the Fermi Paradox is probably the correct one, we're the first, after
all somebody has to be.

 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/CAJPayv1fvCLWPNmDx%2BwdNT-ggNE1aw4oYAAjTgAHndxBkA%3Dn%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:07:26 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>
> This is about the *λ_ZFC* calculus, not the *λ calculus*.
>
>
> λ_ZFC contains infinite terms. Infinitary languages are useful
> and definable: the infinitary lambda calculus [10] is an example, and 
> Aczel’s
> broadly used work [2] on inductive sets treats infinite inference rules 
> explicitly.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
I am aware of this, It is a bit like considering Peano arithmetic in a 
domain where the axioms of infinity and choice hold.

LC
 

>
> On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:25:13 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> 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/b14b7394-7fce-434d-82a4-107b6ce84cf1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 10:51:07 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:54 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > The occurrence of life on Earth in such a rapid time does pose a 
>> possibility for a fairly rapid occurrence, at least on a geological time 
>> scale. for life.
>
>
> Life needs water and liquid water has existed on the Earth for 4.4 billion 
> years.
>
> Evidence from zircons for the existence of oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago 
> 
>
> Even though it had liquid water there is no evidence life existed on Earth 
> until 900 million years had passed, and even then it was just bacteria. It 
> took another 800 million years before the first eukaryotes evolved, and 2 
> billion years after that before the first multicellular creatures evolved, 
> and 700 million years after that before creatures with the ability to make 
> radio telescopes evolved. That doesn't seem very rapid to me, the sun will 
> start to turn into a red giant in about 500 million years, so if the 
> process had been a bit slower we'd be going extinct along with everything 
> else on the planet when we had achieved about the same level of technology 
> that we have now.
>
>  John K Clark
>

Biology appeared on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago. It is thought life 
may have originated around thermal vents in the early ocean, which could 
push the emergence of life back to 4 billion years. This means that after 
the so called Hadean period of mass bombardment life emerged within a few 
100 million years. Given that time periods tend to telescope the early you 
go in geological history this is fairly quick. 

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/2ea7209d-69c9-479f-94a2-03ffb6fad81f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

2020-03-07 Thread John Clark 
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:54 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The occurrence of life on Earth in such a rapid time does pose a
> possibility for a fairly rapid occurrence, at least on a geological time
> scale. for life.


Life needs water and liquid water has existed on the Earth for 4.4 billion
years.

Evidence from zircons for the existence of oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago


Even though it had liquid water there is no evidence life existed on Earth
until 900 million years had passed, and even then it was just bacteria. It
took another 800 million years before the first eukaryotes evolved, and 2
billion years after that before the first multicellular creatures evolved,
and 700 million years after that before creatures with the ability to make
radio telescopes evolved. That doesn't seem very rapid to me, the sun will
start to turn into a red giant in about 500 million years, so if the
process had been a bit slower we'd be going extinct along with everything
else on the planet when we had achieved about the same level of technology
that we have now.

 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/CAJPayv2QeZDLOnb1YfuV-v61sDp4YX8K3qM8ii146FD1p0Aakw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread John Clark 
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:50 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *The Schrödinger equation is just a neural network.*


Just?! You're a neural network too, and some neural networks, like some
equations, can predict what a physical system will do with 14 digits of
precision, and some can't.

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/CAJPayv235engcUJzubw2jVfkO5eNVA2a%3DsNCXe-Ry3QnZH%3DeNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

The Great Attractor?

2020-03-07 Thread Alan Grayson 
Is there a huge mass which distant galaxies are moving toward, or are we 
detecting the rotation of a hyper-spherical universe? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd8a3b32-7812-4a04-9e6a-9913ef23c3e5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Philip Thrift 


On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:10 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>
> >>"The most elegant interpretation of quantum mechanics is the universe 
>>> is constantly splitting."
>>
>>
>> *> A joke, right?*
>>
>
> Yes if you think the Schrodinger equation meaning what it says is funny. 
> Personally I wouldn't consider that to be a knee slapper but comedy is a 
> purely subjective matter.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>

The Schrödinger equation is just a neural network.

Deep neural network solution of the electronic Schrödinger equation
Jan Hermann 
, Zeno 
Schätzle 

, Frank Noé 

(Submitted on 16 Sep 2019 (v1 ), last 
revised 6 Dec 2019 (this version, v2))

The electronic Schrödinger equation describes fundamental properties of 
molecules and materials, but can only be solved analytically for the 
hydrogen atom. The numerically exact full configuration-interaction method 
is exponentially expensive in the number of electrons. Quantum Monte Carlo 
is a possible way out: it scales well to large molecules, can be 
parallelized, and its accuracy has, as yet, only been limited by the 
flexibility of the used wave function ansatz. Here we propose PauliNet, a 
deep-learning wave function ansatz that achieves nearly exact solutions of 
the electronic Schrödinger equation. PauliNet has a multireference 
Hartree-Fock solution built in as a baseline, incorporates the physics of 
valid wave functions, and is trained using variational quantum Monte Carlo 
(VMC). PauliNet outperforms comparable state-of-the-art VMC ansatzes for 
atoms, diatomic molecules and a strongly-correlated hydrogen chain by a 
margin and is yet computationally efficient. We anticipate that thanks to 
the favourable scaling with system size, this method may become a new 
leading method for highly accurate electronic-strucutre calculations on 
medium-sized molecular systems.


 

>  
>
@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/8af0e442-00b7-4258-936d-7bb05c1475c4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:10 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>
> >>"The most elegant interpretation of quantum mechanics is the universe 
>>> is constantly splitting."
>>
>>
>> *> A joke, right?*
>>
>
> Yes if you think the Schrodinger equation meaning what it says is funny. 
> Personally I wouldn't consider that to be a knee slapper but comedy is a 
> purely subjective matter.
>
> John K Clark
>

Which quantum interpretation one considers is also a subjective matter.

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/dbe9ef02-c2d8-4902-8f5b-5fa698607fb3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 7:39:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> 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

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread John Clark 
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:10 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:


>>"The most elegant interpretation of quantum mechanics is the universe is
>> constantly splitting."
>
>
> *> A joke, right?*
>

Yes if you think the Schrodinger equation meaning what it says is funny.
Personally I wouldn't consider that to be a knee slapper but comedy is a
purely subjective matter.

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/CAJPayv3XVj6A%3D2Z%2B9K-LskQLVE4N2C%2BR2tuCUVgvDeZa1HEodw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Philip Thrift 


"The most elegant interpretation of quantum mechanics is the universe is 
constantly splitting."


A joke, right?

@philipthrift

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
>

-- 
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/9a634078-cf7d-48e7-9765-0831c4336514%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

2020-03-07 Thread Philip Thrift 



This is about the *λ_ZFC* calculus, not the *λ calculus*.


λ_ZFC contains infinite terms. Infinitary languages are useful
and definable: the infinitary lambda calculus [10] is an example, and 
Aczel’s
broadly used work [2] on inductive sets treats infinite inference rules 
explicitly.

@philipthrift


On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:25:13 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> 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/66b0ea9f-dd1b-4372-9086-76f2eef6a994%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2020-03-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell 
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 7:51:10 PM UTC-6, Brent 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
>
> Brent
>

The question on whether QM has an infinite or finite Hilbert space can be 
addressed with the existence of event horizons. The cosmological event 
horizon puts a limit. Consider a Planck scale quantum state that has been 
redshifted to the cosmological horizon scale. This is a ratio of around 
10^{60} and from the FLRW this leads to a distance of around 1800 billion 
light years. Since this defines a finite region this means the Hilbert 
space accessible to any observer is finite, even if enormously large. Even 
if the global Hilbert space is infinite, observers are fundamentally local 
and the amount of quantum information accessible is finite. To take this 
further, with inflationary cosmology the cosmological event horizon on the 
high energy vacuum was only 10^2 or 10^3 Planck units of radius the large 
number of quantum states that appear accessible on the low energy physical 
vacuum are an enormous redundancy. 

At around 1:14 Carroll gets to brass-tacks on this issue with the horn. The 
idea in MWI is then "everything happens that can happen," which some people 
find difficult. In effect even though there is a probability weight with 
each possible branch, an observer that witnesses a highly improbable 
quantum event has this sense they are on a split branch and have no post 
collapse information about a prior probability. MWI has the concept of a 
cosmic wave function, but this sense of there being only two outcomes 
reflects a lack of counterfactual definite reasoning tied to objective 
probabilities. As a result these branches occur in a certain nonlocal 
sense. 

Is this at all demonstrable? No, counterfactual definite reasoning and the 
existence of a global wave are not demonstrable. There are forms of 
horizons, in general a form of epistemic horizon, which are a 
generalization of the inaccessibility of information in QM and with general 
relativity and event horizons. So whether there is or is not a global 
cosmological wave function is a metaphysical choice of an analyst. 
Generally ψ-ontological interpretations have a global cosmic wave function, 
but a subset of those with a hidden variable interpretation also have 
counterfactualism. 

As Carroll points out there are four major types of interpretations, MWI 
and deBroglie-Bohm, both ψ-ontic but with and without counterfactualism, 
and Qubism and dynamic collapse that are ψ-epistemic. Qubism has some 
advantages, but it leads to odd ideas that are almost solipsism. Dynamic 
collapse and related idea of stochastic QM have wave functions just 
spontaneously collapse and the more entangled the system is the more 
frequent this will happen. I have certain issues there with how to treat 
coherent states such as with lasers or with condensates of states. In 
general one can pick and choose, and these are available for those who want 
to think of certain problems in a certain framework. I think frankly that 
QM decoherence, and by extension a measurement, amounts to a sort of Gödel 
numbering of quantum bits by quantum bits. I see all of these 
interpretations of QM then as a sort of incompleteness or inconsistency 
that results by trying to impose a certain question or proposition on QM 
that is not decidable.

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/a65f1c1d-2d39-4690-81fb-be2dd41e6ecf%40googlegroups.com.