Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in atm CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global temp. The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years more or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not a good explanation after all. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now. “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained, dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon dioxide–sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean’s food chain. Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice ages.. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition from extreme warming to cooling? I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility based on plate movement. But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream known to result from arctic warming. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Here is a much better graph showing the correlation. Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as comparable data over a longer time. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue,'Helvetica Neue#3 ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536 Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Richard, Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 20 March 2014 2:00 pm [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now. “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life. The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking went. Then ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, The correlation is actually pretty solid, though the discrepancies may indicate some other factors at play also. And what makes you think another ice age isn't coming? it's more or less time for the next one. Or perhaps global warming is what will either stop it or make it less intense, and thus may be the best thing to happen for the preservation of civilization? :-) Edgar On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:41:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Edgar, It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and we can expect global cooling to occur again. Richard On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Spud, Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. See a href=http://en.wikipedia.o ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, If only dead wood is cut for firewood and cooking you are just recycling a sustainable resource. Unlike coal and oil, firewood quickly and sustainably regenerates. And basically burning dead wood is just speeding up the natural process of the decay of dead trees. So burning dead wood for heat is NOT the problem. It's a completely sustainable process. The problem is way too many people so they are forced to cut LIVE wood and denude forests. So again it's a human overpopulation problem, not a firewood problem... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last le ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:59:36 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. div style=col... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Jesse, Sure, I'm well aware of these predictions, but my point is that many necessary global resources are being rapidly depleted by just the current human population, so even that is not sustainable. In general the standard demographic predictions don't pay much attention to the dwindling resources upon which population is dependent. Edgar On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Spud, But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, the ecosystem, and the human species itself. Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the exponentially increasing number of humans. So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it sustainably Edgar Most demographers project that the population will level off at around 10 billion, because of various trends that tend to reduce the number of children like populations becoming more urban and women being more educated--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projectionsfor some info. Of course predicting human behavior is never purely scientific and there are some who think this projection is too optimistic, see http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_if_experts_are_wrong_on_world_population_growth/2444/ Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land. This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most alternatives Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this observation. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multipl...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people, ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Spud, The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good target ~half to 1 billion... Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us... Edgar On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. Mitch Spud, Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or very ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Entropy and curved spacetime
Brent. Correct to a point and those networks of entanglement form the basis of my theory of how space arises piecewise from quantum events that no one here is interested in exploring even though it resolves all quantum paradox and shows how to unify QT and GR. Ah, well, there is always the Sex Pistols to occupy your intellects! :-) Edgar On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:47:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with them. So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, decoherence has the same effect. Brent On 3/18/2014 2:52 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: Yes, if you have the exact present quantum state and you're assuming the normal quantum rules for continuous wavefunction evolution, you can determine the past quantum state. The answer might change if you assume that there's an objective physical reality to the collapse of wavefunction with measurement, distinct from the normal wavefunction evolution rules. Jesse On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Am I right in assuming that in a quantum mechanical universe you can trace the history backwards? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Entropy and curved spacetime
Brent, If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in the SAME amount of matter states? Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states? I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it first Edgar On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with them. So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, decoherence has the same effect. I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible. In fact from the standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just like Laplace's universe. So, as always, when the word possibility is used there has to be some context. To *calculate* a history of the universe from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present state, including your mental state. Is that theoretically possible? I think it involves a paradox of self-reference. To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in a universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the laws of physics could. Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL. But relative to any point it loses information across spacetime horizons. So there's no way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the past anyway. There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more technical paper. Brent I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the past happening on TV. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Entropy and curved spacetime
Telmo, No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that amount to the cumulative total. Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17:28 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Brent, If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in the SAME amount of matter states? By an increase in Shannon entropy, up to a point. This is why you can compress computer files, for example. Telmo. Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states? I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it first Edgar On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with them. So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, decoherence has the same effect. I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible. In fact from the standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just like Laplace's universe. So, as always, when the word possibility is used there has to be some context. To *calculate* a history of the universe from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present state, including your mental state. Is that theoretically possible? I think it involves a paradox of self-reference. To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in a universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the laws of physics could. Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL. But relative to any point it loses information across spacetime horizons. So there's no way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the past anyway. There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more technical paper. Brent I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the past happening on TV. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
John, If human overpopulation is not drastically reduced humanely it will inevitably be drastically reduced INhumanely... There are a number of ways to reduce human overpopulation humanely. Mainly by offering sufficient financial incentives to women of child bearing age to undergo voluntary sterilization. There are a number of ways this could be fine tuned to work quite well. Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:16:16 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.comjavascript: wrote: I have offered quite a few prescriptions – none of which you will approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow in. and are hostile to energy harvesting – the solar flux, the wind. I would be in favor of them if they worked, but environmentalists would be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it. All the various threads of our world’s problems are rooted in the same evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level. All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN; so repent now or suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Entropy and curved spacetime
Telmo, No, that was Brent's claim. I'm asking him to tell us how it works. Where is all that additional information about past states stored if he thinks none of it is lost? Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:32:48 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Telmo, No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that amount to the cumulative total. So you're essentially claiming that the universe is increasing exponentially in complexity? Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17:28 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Brent, If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in the SAME amount of matter states? By an increase in Shannon entropy, up to a point. This is why you can compress computer files, for example. Telmo. Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states? I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it first Edgar On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with them. So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, decoherence has the same effect. I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible. In fact from the standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just like Laplace's universe. So, as always, when the word possibility is used there has to be some context. To *calculate* a history of the universe from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present state, including your mental state. Is that theoretically possible? I think it involves a paradox of self-reference. To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in a universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the laws of physics could. Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL. But relative to any point it loses information across spacetime horizons. So there's no way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the past anyway. There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more technical paper. Brent I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the past happening on TV. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Entropy and curved spacetime
Bruno, Well I'm using loose language to make it easier to understand. Actually it is the information itself that represents what are then interpreted by humans and science as matter states My point being that the information forms that manifest as matter states in human internal mental models of reality don't continually reproduce themselves to produce more of what is interpreted as matter states, so how does Brent think all the additional information of all actual prior matter states are stored, if not in the information of current matter states? That's more precise but not sure if it's clearer... Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:24:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Mar 2014, at 12:54, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states? This contradicts your statement that the physical arises from the computational. But you have not yet define what you mean by computational. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Liz, et al, The problem with your and other's comments is that, as I've explained before, entropy is NOT fundamental as many seem to think.. The current entropy state depends entirely on the current mix of the four fundamental forces, in particular on whether gravitation is more attractive or repulsive. For example if gravitation suddenly switched from attractive to repulsive from a universal black hole collapse to a white hole big bang that would automatically explain the supposedly improbably initial LOW entropy state that has Penrose and others so puzzled. So when you try to connect information and entropy you again run into this same problem. If, as the universe expands, the balance of repulsive to attractive gravitation shifts so will the entropy balance. This is easy to see. In a universe where gravitation is massively repulsive the maximum entropy state will be a uniform dispersion of matter throughout all space, but just the opposite in a universe with massively attractive gravitation where the maximum entropy state will be a single universal black hole. So entropy is NOT fundamental. It depends on the current mix of forces. AND entropy has nothing to do with the arrow of time either. Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:35:11 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 19 March 2014 15:55, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: wrote: So an expanding universe should give rise to increasing maximum entropy, but the total energy remains constant (at zero). As for what happens to the free energy (stuff available for work), its a bit more complicated, but it appears that processes reducing the free energy (or increasing the entropy, as its the same thing) are not currently keeping up with the increase in maximum entropy caused by an expanding universe. This is the bottom line, in a nutshell. As long as the entropy ceiling goes on rising, the energy available to do work decreases, I think asymptotially, but is never reduced to zero. (Hence we might still have conscious beings made from electron-positron atoms larger than the current Hubble radius in the year 1 googol... perhaps) I'm not sure what happens when the available energy reaches the zero point level, though? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Liz, How is going to another planet and screwing that one up too going to help. The problem is not astronomical, it's human nature. The very success of humans as a species depended on the ruthless exploitation of nature and repression of competition. But those exact same aspects of human nature are what is now destroying our planet's ecosystem and likely ourselves. Can we change human nature? Unlikely I fear... Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:58:38 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: If we could just get away from one planet ... but the difficulty is, well, astronomical. Before now we could always leave the place where disaster struck, move from the valley where the soil was full of salt or whatever, start again with a fresh load of resources. I can't see us doing that this time, though. On 16 March 2014 14:32, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:02:31 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: Oh, and once this happens, that will be it for humanity, of course, because we can't restart civilisation with no easily accessible fuel sources. So we'll stay in the middle ages until a passing comet gets us (or similar). This does of course explain why SETI hasn't found anything. Hell of a way to prove a theory though. Earlier collapses where small and local, but almost nothing ever survived. The bigger the progress, the great the surge, the more the feedback to yet more progress, the steeper the exponential dimensional growth of the potentiality and the sophistication. But the complexity of the problems rises exponentially to for linear steps. The progress has a lifespan, and the lifespan...the life span is exponential as per the extents of the fundamental progress and breakthrough. But in thye end the progress starts to slow away from the exponential, and the result is unhandled problems, which diminish the overall potential of the system, thus progress dimishes at a faster rate, and the problems and complexities start to run ahead. How far those problems and complexities run ahead before the collapse, is the scale of the catastrophe. How fare it gets is about energy. Fat...how much capacity has a society or a people accumulated, and how recklessly and destructively it is now being spent, and who controls the process now, and what is in their nature. The West and rest amassed unbelievable excess energy, in prosperity, productivity, efficiency, technology, science. Now it is being spent at a rate that also goes up exponentially. We just don't see that because we don't understand the nature of energy, so we only see a partial view of it the part we do understand. But the energy compared to the biggest collapse on this dynamic before us, is like the Sun to the Moon. Our energy is feeding into the trap and it grows bigger and bigger...it's huge now. yet we still have more to put it. There isn't going to be another day for the human dream. There's one way, and that's to save this day. But it's a window held open by as little as a single thread. The reversal is a reversal of everything, of ideas, of potentials, of ideologies, of minds. Everything that was the most promising and good becomes the worst of the most destructive and foul. Nothing is the right vehicle for that turnaround. So the nature of the challenge is something that becomes and evolves from within itself, does not ask for permission or explain or persuade, just attaches, extracts, realigns and corrects. It's a process that would need to be a 2nd scientific revolution, a revolution of economics, of society, of strategy and of mind. This is the theory that is needed. Not one that goes into a 'paper' and asks to be read and loved and adopted by a world gone hive. But a theory directly existential, that becomes an evolutionof strategy that gets it right, everything. So has time to evolve, and solves for evolution within itself, and for a consciousness such that it's an extension of us, and between us, more than us, but no more than any one of us. A consciousness can turn hive, like everything else. There's a right way to evolve it and up to an infinity of degree by which to get it wrong. How right, or how long is how long before the reversal. We're not a long lived species. Look at the graph of human species, bar one, long ago now gone, the species burn out quicker and quicker leading up to us. We're paying for greateess in longevity. There's a playoff, an exchange of a finite furtherest extent. And how many times has the universe got evolution to this precise point, and how many times has evolution failed to find the way over this huge hump. Evolution produces us, so we're part of it, we're the big hope, that's the natural selection force that has to be unbelievable strong. We the eggs and the one basket. We show up again and again on the most successful living planets. Again nd again we get here.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Richard, Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on each other even more viciously! So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing the dumping? :-) Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: div class=gmai ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
Craig, Depends on what you mean by 'self-awareness'. Do you mean awareness that you are a separate 'thing' in the world with special attributes? Or do you mean the self monitoring awareness of your actual functions as you perform them? These are two very different meanings of self-awareness. Edgar On Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:17:47 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness? It's not my theory, but does computationalism provide a reason why your eye looking in the mirror doesn't have self-awareness? Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: https://31.media.tumblr.com/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/ Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_) Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance of developing that awareness than those which have not? If not, what initial conditions would be necessary for such an awareness to develop in some machines and how would those initial conditions appear? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
All, this seems like a very reasonable scenario and is in line with my thinking.. Edgar http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists NASA-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'? Natural and social scientists develop new model of how 'perfect storm' of crises could unravel global system [image: This NASA Earth Observatory released on] This Nasa Earth Observatory image shows a storm system circling around an area of extreme low pressure in 2010, which many scientists attribute to climate change. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution. Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history. Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common. The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center http://www.sesync.org/, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics. It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation: The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent. By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energyhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/energy . These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity; and the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or Commoners) [poor] These social phenomena have played a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse, in all such cases over the last five thousand years. Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with Elites based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both: ... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels. The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency: Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use. Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two centuries has come from increased (rather than decreased) resource throughput, despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period. Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharri and his colleagues conclude that under conditions closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid. In the first of these scenarios, civilisation: appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature. Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, finding that with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
All, In terms of the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions the theory I find most compelling in both cases is asteroid strikes whose resulting strike energies were also focused at the antipodes. The energy of the Cretaceous strike off the Yucatan was focused in India where it ruptured the crust resulting in the Deccan Traps. The even larger Permian asteroid strike occurred in the South Pacific and its energy was focused in Siberia where it ruptured the crust there resulting in the Siberian Traps. The time frames are roughly consistent though in both cases the traps persisted long after the asteroid strikes which initiated them. So in both cases you would have double whammies whose persistent effects lasted for much longer than the effects of the original asteroid impacts which initiated them. Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 1:44:49 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:29 AM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemo...@yahoo.comjavascript: wrote: 66 million years ago 2/3 of all species, not individual animals but entire species, became extinct quite literally ove ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
Craig, Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness? Edgar On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: https://31.media.tumblr.com/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/ Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_) Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance of developing that awareness than those which have not? If not, what initial conditions would be necessary for such an awareness to develop in some machines and how would those initial conditions appear? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll let him speak for himself. Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:52:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance depend on how humans see the world? If so I disagree, Edgar Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this. In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Liz, Don't you understand the difference between a repeatable observation, which is the basis of science, and human interpretations of reality based on how human minds work? Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:12:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Brent, Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how minds work... So these consensus views are correct on everything except space? I'm sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Russell, You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance depend on how humans see the world? If so I disagree, Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:53:40 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other? O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other observers as being similar to himself? Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems awfully lonely Edgar I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of such a view. An example of such a reflection is the conservation law of energy, which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to be invariant through time, ie a reflection of how we see the world. See Noether's theorem. To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external ontological reality. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
John, I don't know where you are getting your data but the data I've seen shows a fairly neat CORRELATION of global temps and CO2. Would you like to give us a link that shows otherwise that is authoritative? Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming caused by increased CO2 If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm. And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may be getting warmer but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not clearly understood but may be related to clouds, during the day at any given temperature it takes longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today much less know if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100. Sure they can. It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds. The IPCC AR4 models predict the increased cloudiness. And what evidence can you provide that prove that particular climate model makes better predictions than nineteen dozen other climate models? The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low clouds and high clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict. If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're uncertain about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that. It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing. Plenty clear? During the Carboniferous era the Earth was not .8 degrees warmer or even 4 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, and yet plant life was far more abundant then than it is now. A lot more people die from starvation than freezing. But more people die from freezing than heatstroke. And why do you thing the ideal temperature to grow the most food occurs when the temperature is .8 degrees cooler than now when we know that when it was 18 degrees warmer plants were more abundant than they've ever been before or sense? Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a cure for global warming ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Bruno, Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive. How many times do I have to say that it arises from computational space before it registers with you? I've also said over and over that the physical universe as we imagine it is NOT out there. The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in our minds. It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical universe which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of in computational space. I have no idea what you mean by numbers indexical personal views. Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how minds work... But you do agree that such physical universe out there is not primitive, and arise from the computational space. Then if you use computation in the standard sense (Church thesis, etc.), then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of primitively real universe come from. Both time and space, and energy, comes from numbers indexical personal views. You might follow the current explanation or read the papers. It makes computationalism testable (and partially tested). Bruno Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells. That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other. The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen. I'm observing a computer screen. is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical model I could say Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain. Or eschewing physicalism, Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought I'm observing a computer screenwhich pretty much brings me back to just I'm observing a computer screen. A circle of explanation. Brent The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis you end up with solipsism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Ghibbsa, I explain spin entanglement paradox this way: When the particles are created their spins must already be equal and opposite orientations due to conservation. But this is true only in the mini spacetime which is defined by their conservation. That spacetime fragment is NOT LINKED to the spacetime alignments of the observer and laboratory. Thus because separate spacetimes can have no alignments with respect to each other, the spin alignment is still undetermined in the frame of the observer. Only when the spin alignment of one particle is measured do these separate spacetimes merge through that common event and at this point they are automatically aligned so the spin orientations of both particles are aligned in the frame of the lab. As soon as we understand that spacetime is not just a single universal common structure but actually consists of separate dynamic fragmentary spacetimes that need to be glued together by common events for alignments to resolve, then all quantum paradox is resolved because all quantum paradoxes seem paradoxical only with respect to the single common fixed universal spacetime MISTAKENLY ASSUMED. All quantum randomness arises because there can be no deterministic rules to align completely separate spacetime fragments, thus nature must act randomly to align them.. Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:53:22 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie discussion on this group. First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem random, it's quantum level events. If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'. Edgar Edgar, so how do you explain things like the two slit experiment and entanglement with this theory? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel further in space to get from t1 to t2 and consequently must also travel less far in time. Correct? To confirm, consider a simplified twin example with only straight lines so we can ignore accelerations. A remains at rest with a straight vertical line from t1 to t3. B travels away from t1 in a straight oblique line, reverses direction midpoint (call this t2) and travels in a straight oblique line back to t3. The two halves of B's trip are symmetric (have the same velocities away from and back towards A) therefore B's proper time, calculated by A, will be = 2 x sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2). In other words we have to multiply by 2 to get the proper time of B for the entire trip. Correct? OK, now consider another case with A and B just moving with constant relative motion and their world lines crossing at t1 and then diverging. There is NO acceleration. In this case using the Lorentz transform both A and B will observe each other's time running slow relative to their own. And using your formula above both A and B will also observe each other's proper times SLOWED RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN. But doesn't this mean that since A and B get different results about each other's proper times that this method of calculating proper times is NOT INVARIANT, and thus is not actually calculating proper times which you say are invariant? I agree that this method correctly calculates how A and B observe each other's clock times, but not sure that's the same as the other's actual proper times. Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm not, we are trying to find the truth I'm not resistant in general, I have said I agree to a number of agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of lengths in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't deduce my opinion on this from statements like this: in terms of proper times C B A which is the opposite of how it works with spatial lengths or: in spatial terms a straight li ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct? But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper times between A and C with your method? And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE? Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm not, we are trying to find the truth I'm not resistant in general, I have said I agree to a number of agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of lengths in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't deduce my opinion on this from statements like this: in terms of proper times C B A which is the opposite of how it works with spatial lengths or: in spatial terms a stra ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional relationships mandated by conservation laws. But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur within. So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure. This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations rather than a pre-existing background to them... Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of Quantum randomness. But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the challenge! :-) Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
All, re global warming Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge threathttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zmescience/~3/w9XOKUpInB0/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email Oceanographers believe that Antarctica‘s oceanic waters, which are turning from briny to fresh in recent decades, are causing the shutdown of the Southern Ocean’s coldest, deepest currents.The cold currents, called the Antarctic Bottom Water, are basically cold, briny, underwater rivers flowing from the underwater edge of the Antarctic continent north toward the equator, very close to the seafloor. They carry oxygen, carbon, and many nutrients to the depths of the ocean, and play a huge role in the survival of creatures which live close to the seafloor. It has already been shown in the past years that the effects of this current are shrinking, but it was unclear if this is a man-caused, or if it is simply a natural process. This new study concludes that Antarctica’s changing climate is to blame for the shrinking Antarctica Bottom Water. Here’s what happens, at a very basic level: we’re dealing with a global warming situation. The higher temperatures cause ice to melt, and they also cause increased precipitations (both rain and snow) in the Antarctic areas. The melting glaciers and precipitation bring a massive influx of sweet water which slowly replaces the briny, oceanic water in the area. Since the fresh and briny water have different densities and somewhat different chemical properties, this prevents the currents from taking their normal course. “Deep ocean waters only mix directly to the surface in a few small regions of the global ocean, so this has effectively shut one of the main conduits for deep-ocean heat to escape,” said Casimir de Lavergne, an oceanographer at McGill University in Montreal. The key part of the chain here are polynyas – natural holes surrounded by sea ice. These persistent regions of open water form when upwellings of warm ocean water keep water temperatures above freezing, acting pretty much like natural refrigerators – they absorb the cold temperatures, the water gets colder (higher density), and drops to the bottom, sending hotter water in its stead, creating a current. But as Antarctica’s water freshened, fewer and fewer polynyas appeared – specifically because freshwater is less dense, and even if it gets colder, it doesn’t sink to the bottom. It acts like a lid, sealing off the current and shutting down oceanic circulation. “What we suggest is, the change in salinity of the surface water makes them so light that even very strong cooling is not sufficient to make them dense enough to sink,” de Lavergne told ZME Science. “Mixing them gets harder and harder.” De Lavergne cautioned that the heat-storage effect is localized to the Antarctica area, and it’s not connected to the so-called global warming “hiatus” – the observed slowing down of global warming, even with increased energies in the system. “Our study is still a hypothesis,” he added. “We say that climate change is preventing convection from happening, but we do not know how frequent it was in the past, so that’s a big avenue for future research.” However, even as just a hypothesis, this is a worrying conclusion; oceanic anoxia is not a laughing matter, and it’s just another evidence that this global warming we are causing has significant and sometimes unexpected effects all around the world. Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge threat is a post from ZME Science. (c) ZME Science - All Rights Reserved. On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:48:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 6 March 2014 12:42, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: LizR wrote 3-2-14: *(JM:* *Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.* ) *Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do * *anything?! (L)* Look at the problem is quite diffeent from *settling it* by today's knowledge means. We may anticipate tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a grain of salt. You said set the first time, not settle. (And you put it in quotes for some reason.) Maybe you could try explaining yourself well enough that I know what I'm answering? It *sounds* like you're fulminating against do-gooders who are trying to solve problems using the tools they have to hand, and saying that they are going about it the wrong way - but maybe you meant something completely different? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your posts. I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you claim. The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock which is what this diagram shows. So to calculate the length of A's and B's world lines in C's frame (which this diagram represents) we must take the apparent lengths as shown from C's frame view on the diagram, and SHORTEN each section by the apparent slowing of ITS CLOCK relative to C's CLOCK. In other words, the proper time LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines will NOT be as they appear in this diagram which displays their apparent length's relative to C's proper clock. To get the actual length we have to use the readings of A's and B's clock and shorten their apparent lengths by that amount. When we do this all the blue segments of A's and B's world lines become parallel to C's and thus add no length to A's or B's world lines. This is what we would expect since the pure NON-accelerated relative motion of the blue segments doesn't add length to a world line. So when we subtract the apparent length differences of the blue lines all we are left with is the red ones which are equal. Thus the actual LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines are equal. And the only effects which add length to world lines are in fact accelerations as I claimed. The point is that the TRAJECTORIES in spacetime of world lines from some frame like C's in this diagram do NOT properly represent the invariant LENGTHS of those world lines. Because to get the invariant proper time length we must shorten those trajectories by the apparent clock slowing along it to get the actual proper clock interval from start to finish. So when we do this we find that the different LENGTHS of world lines between any two spacetime points are due ONLY TO ACCELERATIONS OR GRAVITATION as I previously stated. Do you agree? Edgar On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:01:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this except in response to your own Troll obsession.) Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest scientific answer for a change if you can... OK? It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care to chime in.. In the case of the traditional twin paradox where one accelerates between meetings while the other does not, the one that accelerates always has the greater path length through spacetime, so in this case they are logically equivalent. But you can have a case in SR (no gravity) where two observers have identical accelerations (i.e. each acceleration lasts the same interval of proper time and involves the same proper acceleration throughout this interval), but because different proper times elapse *between* these accelerations, they end up with worldlines with different path lengths between their meetings (and thus different elapsed aging)...in an online discussion a while ago someone drew a diagram of such a case that I saved on my website: http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg In this example A and B have identical red acceleration phases, but A will have aged less than B when they reunite (you can ignore the worldline of C, who is inertial and naturally ages more than either of them). You can also have cases in SR where twin A accelerates more than B (defined in terms of the amount of proper time spent accelerating, or the value of the proper acceleration experienced during this time, or both), but B has aged less than A when they reunite, rather than vice versa. As always the correct aging is calculated by looking at the overall path through spacetime in some coordinate system, and calculating its length (proper time) with an equation that's analogous to the one you'd use to calculate the spatial length of a path on a 2D plane. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Liz, You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational reality of which individual minds are just subsets of. But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. When you do you don't get solipsism. If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply to my theories but to all science Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells. The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis you end up with solipsism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Brent, Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how minds work... Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells. That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other. The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen. I'm observing a computer screen. is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical model I could say Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain. Or eschewing physicalism, Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought I'm observing a computer screenwhich pretty much brings me back to just I'm observing a computer screen. A circle of explanation. Brent The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis you end up with solipsism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Liz, No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption. There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic from what we can observe. That is true. But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our internal models of it. Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:08:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational reality of which individual minds are just subsets of. But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. When you do you don't get solipsism. If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply to my theories but to all science That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say we never directly observe X to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses. Hence you can't start from the basis that... Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. ...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations. Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't exist (assuming it doesn't). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER? E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER? Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your posts. I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you claim. The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock which is what this diagram shows. I don't understand what you mean by the length according to C's clock--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis, 2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and obviously the coordinate time between 2000 at the bottom of the diagram and 2020 at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the length of any particular path. But you can also use C's ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Russell, Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different answers Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how minds work... How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are more less similar to each other? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm not, we are trying to find the truth First, note you don't actually have to calculate anything. A and C just compare clocks when they meet and that gives the actual world line lengths. But, if you want to calculate to predict what that comparison will be, then you have to be careful to do it correctly. C can't just use the Pythagorean theorem on A's world line from his perspective on the x and y distances, he has to use it on the time dimension as well squareroot((y2-y1)^2 + (x2-x1)^2 - c(t2-t1)^2). It is the subtraction of this time term that will reduce the length of the slanting blue lines of A and B to THEIR PROJECTIONS ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE. I think that is what you are saying as well, but my point is that that NULLIFIES any effect on the length of the world lines by the SLANTING of the blue lines NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LENGTHS, and LEAVES ONLY the effects of the red curves. This must be the case because NON-accelerated relative motion DOES NOT affect proper time rates. This is because it is exactly the same from the perspective of A and C moving relative to each other, thus it cannot affect the lengths of their world lines. I'm trying to parse your last paragraph. Your diagram shows ONLY how A's and B's world lines appear in C's comoving frame. It does NOT show the proper LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines. I think we agree the lengths depicted are NOT the actual world line lengths. I claim the blue slanting lines of A and B, one set longer than the other, have NO EFFECT on the actual lengths of A's and B's world lines. Because when we calculate just their proper lengths subtracting the time term as I do above, their proper lengths reduce to their VERTICAL PROJECTIONS on C's vertical world line. In other words there is no difference in proper time rates of A, B or C during the intervals of the slanting blue lines. Thus, in my view, we are left with ONLY the effects of the curving red accelerations, and these are exactly the same for A and B. And when the lengths of those red acceleration segments are calculated we find that A's and B's world lines will both be SHORTER than C's world line AND by the SAME AMOUNT and that A's and B's world line lengths will be EQUAL due only to their equal accelerations. Perhaps to make this clearer consider just two blue lines of A and B slanted with respect to each other and crossing at P. From A's perspective B's line will be slanted, but from B's perspective A's line will be slanted in the other direction by an equal amount AND since this is NON-accelerated inertial motion only, both views are EQUALLY VALID. When we do the Pythagorean world line length calculation we get EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS from both frame views. So both world line lengths are exactly equal. Thus slanted blue lines of ANY LENGTH have NO EFFECT AT ALL on world line lengths, and only curved red line accelerations do. If you disagree I can give you another example. Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:26:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER? E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Russell, Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other? O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other observers as being similar to himself? Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems awfully lonely Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:36:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different answers Edgar Perhaps the similar thing is a mere reflection of the observers observing. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Liz, But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter how good a microscope or telescope we make. That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space is impossible with ANY observational device Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:46:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells. That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other. The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen. I'm observing a computer screen. is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical model I could say Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain. Or eschewing physicalism, Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought I'm observing a computer screenwhich pretty much brings me back to just I'm observing a computer screen. A circle of explanation. My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains (another hypothesis). His argument is similar to saying I can't see atoms, therefore they don't exist. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Brent, I agree that we can use our OBSERVATIONS of the dimensional relationships of particulate events to construct a meaningful THEORY of space. Newton did it. But Einstein found that it really didn't quite work out and came up with a new theory. But now we know that doesn't quite work out either and we need a new theory that unifies QT and GR and resolves quantum paradox. So now I suggest a new THEORY to address these problems. So NO, I am NOT confusing observation and theory. I'm going back to the actual ontological nature of the actual observations and working from there towards a new theory of dimensional space. And I claim that though the OBSERVATIONS are empirical and repeatable, that the THEORY of space is a logico-mathematical construct or edifice, rather than anything physical. Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:37:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how minds work... How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are more less similar to each other? And looking at different things? If we're similar to each other, then similarity of observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is confounding observations with theories, or he's not allowing for the different degrees in which theories contribute to observations. We're very different from Nagel's bat, so we don't perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with sonar. But we both form a three dimensional model of space. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Ghibbsa, I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In my view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely computational in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space. The results of these computations are the information states of the universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to survive within... In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we exist is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information only. With practice it is possible to directly experience this by actually seeing that everything is actually its information components, and that only. Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption. There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic from what we can observe. That is true. It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is something inside our brains but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation. I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like the 'Mirror Pair' But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our internal models of it. I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like? It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because physical reality wasn't there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Brent, But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter how good a microscope or telescope we make. That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful Agree? Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers. Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space itself. Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells. That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other. The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen. I'm observing a computer screen. is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical model I could say Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain. Or eschewing physicalism, Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought I'm observing a computer screenwhich pretty much brings me back to just I'm observing a computer screen. A circle of explanation. My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains (another hypothesis). His argument is similar to saying I can't see atoms, therefore they don't exist. Then I agree with your point. But it's interesting then to consider what do we observe. It's certainly not brain functions. There seems to be a certain theory of the world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time lapse. Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from there. So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and say, Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain. And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world. Brent You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of. --- Robert Penn Warren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Ghibbsa and Bruno, Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real universe? I also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical usually politics itself won't be able to trump that. So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your theory's paper was revoked? Thanks, Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:29:46 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. Best, Bruno Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this except in response to your own Troll obsession.) Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest scientific answer for a change if you can... OK? It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care to chime in.. Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:56:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT. Having your worldlines be different lengths in spacetime will also cause differences in actual age, as Brent has explained (with diagrams). Consistently ignoring this point and others like it is one reason most people here consider you a troll, so please try to address it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in the same inertial frame OR undergo symmetric accelerations. Same ages is just a way to ensure synchronized clocks at the birth event and make examples simpler. It has nothing to do with p-time synchrony per se. So in your next paragraph your and Jimbo's proper clocks ARE synchronized in p-time from then on under the conditions stated. But I don't understand the rest of your example since you just stated that we are to ignore their PREVIOUS and SUBSEQUENT acceleration histories to preserve the synchronies but then you start giving an example with accelerations, which will obviously change their synchrony UNLESS they are symmetric. You seem to claim that the accelerations are symmetric but you keep describing them as stopping in different frames at different times which indicates they are NOT symmetric. The only way to ensure the accelerations are symmetric is for both A and B to have the same proper accelerations at the same proper times AFTER they synchronize clocks. Are you doing that? If not you are not using MY method. Also you seem to be switching from synchronized proper clocks which I assumed did NOT reflect actual ages to ACTUAL AGES which doesn't work. I used actual ages synchronized at birth (twins) to avoid that kind of misunderstanding. Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:23:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't represent my method OR results. In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my result. Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is clearly transitive between all 4 parties. You earlier agreed that if two observers are at rest relative to each other, then if they synchronize clocks in their rest frame, their clocks will also be synchronized in p-time from then on. In your post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48404.htmlyou responded to ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will certainly give us an EXACT value for the difference in proper times between A and B and I think it will be possible to compare those in a meaningful way to see how they cluster WITHOUT weighting them. In any case this is a peripheral though interesting subject.. Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocit ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it. What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close those proper times are to being equal. Once that's done we have the whole picture. We DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE FRAME VIEWS OF THOSE FRAME VIEWS because we already have ALL the frame views of that one situation. Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 5:01:10 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set? There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Russell, Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that single person first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno? That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a whole panel of judges to approve it, and the whole panel to reject it. Edgar On Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:58:55 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa and Bruno, Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real universe? If it were any of these, then Le Monde would publish a formal retraction, which would indicate that the prize was awarded, and then subsequently withdrawn, along with the reasons for the withdrawal. Instead, the award to Bruno Marchal is not mentioned at all: http://www.lemonde.fr/kiosque/recherche/laureats/prix-recherche-laureats.html I also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical usually politics itself won't be able to trump that. Exactly. Even if you don't believe Bruno about being awarded le Prix Le Monde, it shouldn't matter, as whether or not he was awarded a prize makes no difference as to whether his ideas are correct. To argues otherwise is the fallacious argument from authority. Nevertheless, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy of the original lists of Laureats, as it appeared on 9th of August 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010809221720/http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html I think Bruno is correct that something nefarious occurred. So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your theory's paper was revoked? Thanks, Edgar The other side of the story has never been made public. You can read all about Bruno's side of the story in The Amoeba's Secret, now in English for the first time. My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno started when he mentioned the question Goedel? in class. That, in itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain appalling by anyone's standard. As to what actually happened with le Prix Le Monde - its possible nobody will ever know. All we have are Bruno's suspicions. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that? But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame views of the parties of their OWN age relationships. So whatever proof you think you have, it is not a proof about my method. So, in spite of what you claim you just seem to be trying to prove there is no simultaneity of VIEWS of age relationships rather than addressing the ACTUAL age relationships of the parties themselves which is my whole point. Edgar . On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are: ASSUMPTION 1. If two observers are at rest in the same inertial frame, then events on their worldlines that are simultaneous in their rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time ASSUMPTION 2. If two observers cross paths at a single point in spacetime P, and observer #1's proper time at P is T1 while observer #2's proper time at P is T2, then the event of observer #1's clock showing T1 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of observer #2's clock showing T2. ASSUMPTION 3. p-time simultaneity is transitive That's it! I make no other assumptions about p-time simultaneity. But if you want to actually see how the contradiction is derived, there's really no shortcut besides looking at the math. If you are willing to do that, can we just start with the last 2 questions I asked about the scenario? Here's what I asked again, with a few cosmetic modifications: Please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time as a function of coordinate time, for each observer (expressed using the inertial frame where A and B are at rest, and C and D are moving at 0.8c), and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements: For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12 --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of B's proper time clock reading T=0 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of C's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of A's proper time clock reading T=20 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of D's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? Another little correction--in the last two paragraphs there, where I said Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, I should have written ASSUMPTION 2, since in both cases I was deriving p-time simultaneity from the fact that two clock readings happened at the same point in spacetime. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Here's another point for you to ponder: You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as separation and relative motion diminishes, so I strongly suspect it converges towards my solution in all cases. Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this correlation... In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution? Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: div ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Bruno, Well, I guess for someone who thinks plants love music and that the basic postulates of arithmetic somehow magically generates the entire universe including the flow of time, it seems logical to claim that Edgar does't answer questions without actually counting the number of questions I have and haven't answered compared to the others on this group. If you had any understanding of empirical evidence and scientific method you would quickly arrive at the correct conclusion that none of these 3 postulates are true. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen! Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:32:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I only insult people who insult me first, No. You have insulted many people a long time before they react to the insult. You arrive in a list, and you don't seem to have follow any previous thread. people suggested you to read the UDA, which makes your statement incompatible with computationalism, but it remains unclear if your statements fit or not with computationalism, as you don't define the term computation that you are using. which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. That was not an insult, but a question related to your way to insult people, and of never addressing their question, except by mocking them with an insulting tone. If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. If you don't I certainly won't. OK? Tell us your assumption clearly. Tell us what you mean by computational, and this without invoking some reality, as computation, like most usable concept, is defined independently of any ontology, except for some infinite set of finitely specifiable objects (like strings, numbers, combinators, programs, ...). A computation is what a computer do. You said that reality computes. Are you saying that reality is a computer? Is it a mathematical c... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my results for any distance and motion difference pairs. In other words there would be a lot more views that were close to my solution, than views that were far from my solution. And that we can see this because, as you yourself pointed out, as distance separation and relative motion differences decrease all other frame views DO tend to converge on my results. Thus the aggregate WEIGHT OF ALL VIEWS tends to converge on my solution, which is what I meant to say. Sort of like a Bell curve distribution with a point at top representing my solution Would you agree to that? Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:00:19 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Here's another point for you to ponder: You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the weighted mean of all frame views is? Weighted how? I can't see any weighing that doesn't itself depend on privileging one frame over others. For example, suppose I label frames using velocity relative to my rest frame, and use a uniform distribution on velocity values as my weight function, which implies that the collection of frames with velocities between 0.1c and 0.1c + dV will have the same total weight as the collection of frames with velocities between 0.9c and 0.9c + dV, since these are equal-sized velocity intervals (for example, if dV=0.05c then we are looking at the frames from 0.1c to 0.15c, and the frames from 0.9c to 0.95c). But if we look at all the frames in these two intervals, and translate from their velocities relative to ME to their velocities relative to another frame B that is moving at say 0.8c relative to me, then these two bunches of frames do NOT occupy equal-sized velocity intervals when we look at their velocities relative to frame B (an interval from 0.1c to 0.15c in my frame translates to the interval from -0.761c to -0.739c in B's frame, while an interval of 0.9c to 0.95c in my frame translates to an interval from 0.357c to 0.625c in B's frame). So if we weigh them equally using MY velocity labels, that would translate to an unequal weighing relative to B's velocity labels, so we are privileging my frame's definitions over the definitions of other frames like B. I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as separation and relative motion diminishes, so I strongly suspect it converges towards my solution in all cases. Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this correlation... In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution? This doesn't really help your case unless you can find a weight function for the continuous infinity of different possible frames that doesn't itself privilege one frame's definitions from the start. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't represent my method OR results. In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my result. Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is clearly transitive between all 4 parties. We don't know what t1 and t2 are because you haven't specified their acceleration histories or birth dates, but whatever they are the equation above will hold. The problem is that your careful analysis simply DOES NOT use MY method which depends on the actual real physical causes (acceleration histories) to deternine 1:1 age correlations between any two observers. It uses YOUR method to prove the standard lack of simultaneity between VIEWS of pairs of actual physical events. This is a WELL KNOWN result of relativity WITH WHICH I AGREE! But for the nth time, my method concentrates on the ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, rather than VIEWS of that actual relationship. This is a simple, well accepted logical distinction which most certainly applies here to the ACTUAL age correlations of people.. If a man and a wife love each other that is a real actual physical relationship. The fact that someone else thinks they don't love each other may well be his real VIEW, but it does NOT change or affect the ACTUAL love between the man and his wife. No matter how many times I state this it doesn't seem to sink in Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:36:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that? No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that different pairs of readings are simultaneous using ASSUMPTION 2. If you agreed with those, I would show that several further pairs of readings must also be judged simultaneous in p-time using ASSUMPTION 1, and then all these individual simultaneity judgments would together lead to a contradiction via the transitivity assumption, ASSUMPTION 3. I already laid this out in the original Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart post, but since you apparently didn't understand that post I wanted to go over everything more carefully with the exact x(t) and T(t) functions given, and every point about simultaneity stated more carefully. I thought you would be more likely to answer if I just gave you two statements to look over and verify rather than a large collection of them, but if you are going to stubbornly refuse to answer the opening questions until I lay out the whole argument, here it is in full:/d ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. Or you could equally integrate over the continuous functions. Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view (at the standard intervals as above) gives and see how they cluster. Which I'm pretty sure will be around my result. You don't need to view the resulting graph from any frame as you seem to suggest, because the graph is OF the actual all frame view results. For every frame you simply calculate the apparent lack of simultaneity between two events Nonsiimultaneity=(t1-t2) and plot it relative to the simultaneity that my method claims is actual. Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around m ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT. Relativity agrees on this when the parties MEET. All my method does is to give a method to calculate these real actual changes BEFORE they meet, when the parties are still separated or in relative motion or acceleration or gravitation. This is incredibly simple to understand if you can just escape the notion that all VIEWS of an age relationship are somehow the same as the ACTUAL relationship itself. The views DO differ and these VIEWS ARE VALID VIEWS, but they don't affect the actual RELATIONSHIP THEY ARE VIEWING which is what my method calculates. Again, this is a difference in INTERPRETATIONS of relativity. It does NOT contradict the equations of relativity itself. It simply uses the one that describes the actual relationship rather than ones that describe VIEWS of that relationship. Aren't you at least able to understand what I'm saying even if you don't agree with it? I see no evidence you are even able to do that Edgar On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around m ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame. The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion. I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases. Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers? To address your new questions: Do you deny acceleration and gravitation produce real actual slowings of clock rates and thus of real actual aging rates? Of course we can VIEW these slowings differently from different frames, but the ACTUAL effects they produce on the observer who experiences them are exact. It is these exact actual effects that my method explains, and yours doesn't. We know these effects are real and actual when twins meet up with different ages. Thus we know they were ALSO REAL AND ACTUAL BEFORE the twins met. That is pure simple logic. How many times do I have to explain. The twins exchange flight plans for EXACT SAME ACCLERATIONS AT THE EXACT SAME TIMES before they part. This ABSOLUTELY ENSURES that their age rates will slow EXACTLY THE SAME during their trip. There is no way around that. Another observer can VIEW that differently but from the POV of the twins themselves it IS EXACT AND ABSOLUTE. Thus it is clear to anyone that to properly analyze the REAL ACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE TWINS' AGES WE MUST PRESERVE THE REAL ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACCELERATIONS THAT ARE THE ONLY CAUSE OF AGE RATE CHANGES. Jeez, how difficult is that to understand? And your different frame to exchange flight plans in is an oxymoron because it would make their actual symmetric flight plans appear to be NON symmetric. Only a pair of idiots would do that You are just endlessly repeating what you read in some relativity textbook without using simple logic to determine its proper application Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:51:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I explained that this was because I was using correlation in the way YOU had consistently been using it up until now, to refer to a 1:1 correlation in which each proper age of a twin is matched up to one unique proper age of the other twin. The archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/ has a better search function than google's archive (returning individual posts rather than threads), so I searched for posts from Edgar L. Owen with correlate or correlation in them, results here: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1l=everything-list%40googlegroups.comhaswords=correlatefrom=Edgar+L.+Owennotwords=subject=datewithin=1ddate=order=datenewestsearch=Search http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1l=everything-list%40googlegroups.comhaswords=correlationfrom=Edgar+L.+Owennotwords=subject=datewithin=1ddate=order=datenewestsearch=Search Earliest posts on the block time thread I could find in these searches (that were directed at me, and not some other poster) were these from Feb. 12 and 13 (shown in order below), where you can see from the quotes that you were talking specifically about 1:1 correlations that map clock times of one to specific clock times of the other: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48613.html So all observers are always in the same p-time moment. Now it's just a matter of correlating their clock times to see which clock times occurred in any particular current moment of p-time. http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48716.html Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was reading when B's clock time was reading t'? http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Bruno, It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality. Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind. Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for plants love music. Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do? :-) Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration differences either before or after. There are two equivalent ways they can confirm their actual 1:1 age correlations in both (all cases) when they cross paths. First they can directly observe this 1:1 correlation by simply looking at each other's clocks as they pass. Normally this is not possible if two observers have relative motion with respect to each other, but in this case there is no time delay and the looking only takes a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME, so even though the time RATES of each other's proper clocks are dilated in each other's frames, each can still actually read the correct proper time on the other's clock as they cross. (One might initially think it is impossible to read each others' clocks correctly due to the dilation of relative motion, or even if they passed with different accelerations, but this is not true in the case where they read as they cross. Each proper clock is ALWAYS reading the actual proper age. The apparent dilation effect is just due to the longer interval it takes for signals from that clock to reach the observer. But the signals received always display the real and actual proper age of the clock WHEN the signals were sent. So in the crossing case where there is only a single signal with NO time delay the clock reading received = the actual clock reading when the signal was sent. Note that this analysis points out that all proper clocks continually show the actual proper age of the clock when the signal was sent. So that real actual age is REALLY OUT THERE. Your imaginary 1:1 correlation problem just doesn't take into proper account the transmission time from the clock to the receiver. Just subtract the transmission time and you will get the actual 1:1 age correlation between when any proper age signal was sent and what proper time it was received.) Second they CAN CONFIRM the actual age correlation in ALL cases simply by exchanging light messages as they cross telling each other their actual ages which is an equivalent method. As they cross the light signal has no appreciable delay so whatever actual age they report will correlate to the actual age the other receives the signal. In this way crossing observers CAN UNambiguously determine the 1:1 correlation of their actual ages even if they are in relative motion. With this understanding your 1. is true of symmetric cases, and 2. is true of all cases... Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:19:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame. The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion. I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases. Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers? So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and C's proper ages
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Bruno, I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. If you don't I certainly won't. OK? Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Edgar, On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality. Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind. Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for plants love music. About plants loving music, you take my words far too much seriously, and you have already acknowledge that your theory implies comp, so that you should learn its consequences, which makes your point possibly consistent with an internal view of the block mindscape of the universal Turing machine (computer in the mathematical sense). (but it makes it definitely inconsistent as reified reality). Don't infer from that that I would be certain that some plants don't love music, as I am too much ignorant for that. But their behavior is amazing, notably on larger scale. Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do? :-) Only a troll can add a smiley to an insult, I think. I mean that you know that we are *seriously* asking ourself if you are not a troll. In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories by making clear the assumptions. I will comment your posts only if I got them. And without them I will eventually put you in the spam list, if you insist on the boring insulting strategy. I think you convince no one on this list. You loose. Come back when better prepared. Just give us a link with your assumptions, and mode of reasoning. Stop insulting us. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age reading attached. Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT have to synchronize the signals to do this. This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each other. Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can determine exactly what that correlation is. Do you agree? I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time... Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration differences either before or after. Thanks for the clear answer. So now you hopefully see that you must retract your claim that there's an error in my comments about the scenario with the two pairs of twins A/B and C/D, since I never asserted anything remotely resembling #1, my point about ages that occur at the same point in spacetime being simultaneous in p-time referred SOLELY to #2. Now, can you please address the follow-up questions that I asked you to address if you did agree with #2? I will requote them below: 'On the other hand, if you would answer no, statement #2 is not in error, I agree that in this case T1 and T2 are simultaneous in absolute terms, then please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time as a function of coordinate time, for each observer, and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements: For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12 --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or disagree? --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or disagree?' (if you don't understand the math of how to use x(t) to determine whether someone passed through a given point in spacetime with known x and t coordinates, or how to determine their proper time T at this point, then just ask and I will elaborate) There are two equivalent ways they can confirm their actual 1:1 age correlations in both (all cases) when they cross paths
Re: Block Universes
Brent, First thanks for your comment. I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship. Though Jesse would probably disagree. The current discussion is about choice of frames though. Check my latest post for a synopsis of one case.. Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. This isn't true. In the inertial frame of a third party passing by, B and C age at different rates in different segments of their world lines even though those rates integrate to the same total aging between their two meetings. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is transitive among all observers, AND is the exact same method that gives the correct answer WHEN A AND B MEET and everyone, even you, agrees on the 1:1 age correlation. Our disagreement over choice of frames is spinning its wheels and not getting anywhere. It's a matter of how to INTERPRET relativity, rather than relativity itself. And I have given very convincing reasons why a privileged frame that preserves the actual physical facts that affect age changes is appropriate. You just don't agree with them. As to your example claiming to prove my method leads to a contradiction, just give me the bottom line, a simple synopsis. I don't have the time to wade through a detailed example only to find the only disagreement is over choice of frames again. On the other hand if you ASSUME privileged frames the way I do and think my method of using them leads to a contradiction that isn't just another disagreement over choice of frames that were assumed, then give me a simple example, the simplest you can come up with. Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:37:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age reading attached. Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT have to synchronize the signals to do this. This is a valid method for determining what ages are simultaneous in the inertial frame where they are both at rest. But there is no basis in relativity for judging this frame's views on simultaneity to be any more valid than another frame's. This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each other. Again, you present no argument for why this is the single correct correlation, you just assert it. Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can determine exactly what that correlation is. Do you agree? No. You already agreed in an earlier post that for an inertial observer to label the frame where they are at rest as their own frame is purely a matter of HUMAN CONVENTION, not an objective reality that is forced on them by nature. So even if we ignore these other observers, there is nothing stopping A and B from using a different convention to define their own frame, such as the inertial frame where they both have a velocity of 0.99c along the x-axis. I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Again, you are conflating observers with frames, even though you earlier acknowledged that any link between particular observers and particular frames is just a matter of convention. I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time... OK, thanks. Please prioritize my latest post discussing the scenario with A/B and C/D and statement #1 vs. statement #2, since it seems that your original argument for an error in my analysis was based on falsely imagining I was asserting statement #1 rather than statement #2. Since the analysis really only depends on #2 which you seem to agree with, I would like to proceed with the analysis of this scenario to see if you can find any other reason to object to any other step in the reasoning--if you can't, then presumably you will have no basis for denying the final conclusion that two different ages of the same observer A would have to be simultaneous in p-time, according to your own rules. Jesse On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Your position becomes more and more absurd. You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they are together but they DON'T when they separate. So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1 meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year? And is the correlation lost all at once as they separate or gradually? And if all at once, what is the threshold distance where correlation is lost? And if gradually what is the relativistic formula that determines how much the correlation falls off with distance? The fact is that both twins DO HAVE AN ACTUAL AGE AT ALL TIMES. You've already agreed to this obvious fact. Thus there absolutely MUST be an actual correlation of those ages. That is pure logic, not relativity. All you are saying is that relativity does not give a unique answer for what that correlation is. Sure, I agree completely. But my point is that if we choose the correct frame that preserves the relationship between ONLY the twins themselves we do get a unique unambiguous answer. And so that is the only correct answer. And it is consistent and transitive among all observers. Therefore it qualifies as an actual physical fact. All you are saying is that relativity doesn't have a way to calculate an age correlation. But not having a way to calculate something DOES NOT MEAN it doesn't actually exist, it just means it can't be calculated. Do you agree with that? So to falsify p-time you can't just say a correlation can't be calculated, you have to actually prove there is an actual CONTRADICTION between p-time and relativity. You haven't yet done that and I don't think you can... Note also that the GPS system DOES establish actual 1:1 correlations of proper times between satellites and ground based receivers both moving relative to each other and at distance from each other. if it didn't, it couldn't work. So even relativity tells us this is possible. Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:52:12 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, OK good, that's what I assumed you meant. BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1 correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose their 1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP! You seem to have misunderstood me, although I thought I was pretty clear--I said that they did NOT have a unique actual correlation in their ages when they were at rest relative to each other but at different positions in space, so nothing changes if they start walking, they still don't have any unique actual correlation in their ages. Try reading what I wrote again (with the correction I mentioned that 'any unique actual truth about their ages' has been changed to 'any unique actual truth about the correlation between their ages'): 'No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth about the correlation between their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. What part of all frames are equally valid don't you understand? Or do you not get that if we use an inertial frame where the twins are both moving with the same constant velocity, they do NOT have identical ages at any given moment in this frame? (assuming they had identical ages at any given moment in their rest frame)' Jesse On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com wrote: ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
Brent, et al, I officially challenge anyone to poke any holes in my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events or prove it wrong. If no one takes me up on the challenge I'll have to assume everyone accepts it by default. I claim the theory 1. Resolves all quantum paradox 2. Provides a conceptual unification of QT and GR 3. Explains the necessary source of quantum randomness This theory is at least as controversial and potentially groundbreaking as my P-time Theory so fire away! Here's a summary of the theory: Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are necessarily interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate fragmentary partial space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his as yet UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. Thus there is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, OK, this is some progress. Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some limits. Correct? This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at all to SOME correlation... You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between the twins, while I claim that IF we properly choose a frame that DOES preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects that we narrow that limit to zero resulting in an EXACT 1:1 age correlation. You, in fact, have previously agreed that IF we choose the frame in which the symmetric accelerations were preserved that we DO get an exact 1:1 correlation, you just disagree that that frame is privileged because it preserves the actual age changing symmetric accelerations like I claim. So I suggest that for the moment we ASSUME we should choose that frame, and then see if it can be consistently applied in a transitive manner to achieve a common age correlation between ALL observers. If it can't my theory is falsified. If it can then we can still agree to disagree about how frames should be applied to analyze specific physical relationships. Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 11:39:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Your position becomes more and more absurd. My position is simply that for any question on which different frames give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's judgments to be reality while others are not. I guarantee you that any physicist would agree with this. You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they are together but they DON'T when they separate. So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1 meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year? Any finite number--one trillionth of a nanometer, say. The theory says that no matter how small the distance D you choose, if you have an inertial frame where two clocks are at rest and synchronized a distance D apart, then in another inertial frame where the two clocks are moving along the axis between them at speed v, at any given moment in this new frame one clock's time will be ahead of the other's by vD/c^2. There is a maximum to how far their times can be out-of-sync since v must be smaller than c, this implies that no inertial frame will see them as being out-of-sync by a time greater than or equal to D/c (so if the two clocks are 1 light-second apart in their rest frame, or 299792458 meters apart, any other frame will see them out-of-sync by less than a second). And this means that if you are rounding ages off at some point, in practice you may not have to worry about disagreements in simultaneity between frames--if two people are precisely the same age in their rest frame and are standing only a meter apart in their inertial rest frame, all other frames will say their ages differ by less than 1/299792458 of a second, so obviously if you're rounding their ages to the nearest second you'll still say they're the same age no matter what inertial frame you're using. But if you want to talk about physical reality rather than mere practical approximations, the fact remains that different frames will disagree somewhat on which ages are simultaneous for ANY finite separation, and in relativity there can NEVER be a physical basis for saying that one frame's judgments are a true representation of physical reality while other's are not. And is the correlation lost all at once as they separate or gradually? And if all at once, what is the threshold distance where correlation is lost? And if gradually what is the relativistic formula that determines how much the correlation falls off with distance? See above, if the clocks are at rest a distance D apart and synchronized in their own rest frame, then in another frame moving at speed v along the axis between the two clocks, at any given moment in this new frame the clocks are out-of-sync by vD/c^2. This can be derived directly from the Lorentz transformation which tells you the coordinates of any event in frame #2 if you already have its coordinates in frame #1. The fact is that both twins DO HAVE AN ACTUAL AGE AT ALL TIMES. You've already agreed to this obvious fact. Thus there absolutely MUST be an actual correlation of those ages. That is pure logic, not relativity. That isn't logical at all, in fact it's a complete non sequitur (note that you make no attempt to actually explain the 'logic' that leads you from the premise to the conclusion here). Once again I would mention the geometric analogy: --If you
Re: Block Universes
Liz, Thanks but P-time doesn't need to be rescued from relativity since it's completely consistent with relativity, though apparently not with some people's interpretation of relativity. Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's p-time could be rescued from relativity. If the universe is a simulation running on a game of life, which is itself running in a Newtonian universe with separate space and time dimensions (and assuming the simulation can ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. In any case that's irrelevant if we know you now accept that there is a very LARGE correlation in most situations, and a definable correlation in ALL situations. That there is always SOME correlation. By actual age changing effect I mean proper accelerations and gravitations measurable by a comoving scale at specific clock tick events on his proper clock. There is no doubt these are real actual CAUSES with specific measurable values that thus must have real actual EFFECTS with specific actual values. So you are now saying that all frames DO preserve these effects? Your 4 point representation of my method MAY BE circular, but my actual method is NOT circular. Your statement 1. is an incorrect statement of my theory. What I assume FIRST in the symmetric case is NOT simultaneity of ages but simultaneity of the AGE CHANGING EFFECTS that relativity itself identifies, namely acceleration and gravitation. And in the general case the ages are NOT simultaneous nor are the age changing effects, yet my method still works. Would you claim that in the NON-symmetric case I start by assuming that NON-identical ages are NOT simultaneous. No, of course not, so your statement 1. does NOT represent an assumption my theory makes. I've defined this before but here it is again. The frame in which the accelerations are symmetric is a frame in which the same proper accelerations of BOTH twins occur at the same proper ages of both twins AND in which the proper ages of both twins have the same t value in that symmetry preserving frame. They have the same t value because the twins exchanged flight plans and agreed they would, and we know that their proper clocks MUST run at the same rates under the same accelerations at the same proper times. Therefore we must choose a frame that reflects that agreed upon symmetry. To address your two pair moving relative to each other example if A's proper time comes out both 0 and 20 at the same point in spacetime that sounds like a falsification. Let me paraphrase it for clarity in terms of a pair of observers A and B, and another pair C and D. If I understand it correctly A and B have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each other but separated in space. And C and D have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each other but also separated in space. However B and C are initially at the SAME position in space as the pairs move past each other. A's and B's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are simultaneous in the A/B rest frame. C's and D's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are simultaneous in the C/D rest frame. B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same place in spacetime. NO. for that to be true we have to assume that B's and C's proper ages were INITIALLY THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO SUBSEQUENT PROPER ACCELERATION OR GRAVITATIONAL DIFFERENCES. The simple fact that B and C are at the same point in spacetime DOES NOT require their proper ages to be the same. Obviously not since the twins in general are at DIFFERENT proper ages when they meet at the same point in spacetime. How could you believe differently? So this is the ERROR in your example. Therefore it does NOT generate a result in which A's proper age is both 0 and 20 at the same point in spacetime. Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:50:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, OK, this is some progress. Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some limits. Correct? This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at all to SOME correlation... Once again your argument turns on vague use of language. You were consistently talking about a 1:1 correlation, so naturally I was using correlation in this sense too. If we say all inertial frames agree that my age T' is simultaneous with my twin's age having some value between T1 and T2, but they disagree on the precise value that is NOT a 1:1 correlation, period. So there's been no change in my position, it's you whose changing the meaning of correlation in mid-argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between the twins, What do you mean by actual age changing acceleration effect? If you're talking about things that are directly measurable without use of a particular frame--like each twin's proper age at any specific event on his worldline (including their identical proper ages at the point in spacetime where they reunite
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
Liz, The 'results' and the 'everything' are the actual information state of the universe. There is NO separate storage of anything other than the current information state of the universe. The current information state of the universe is continually being computed by the computations. No, it does NOT assume the existence of particles. In this theory particle properties are prior to the existence of elementary particles. They are the actual components which in valid groups MAKE UP particles. And particle properties themselves, like everything else, are just information sets. When valid sets of particle properties associate they create information states interpreted as particles. This is easy to see because individual particles interact and transform into other particles, but the particle properties themselves are CONSERVED. Particles are NOT conserved, but particle properties ARE conserved. Therefore it tis the particle properties, not the particles, that are the elemental components of reality. Have I answered your questions? Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:57:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I still haven't understood the opening paragraph. Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. This is the same problem I had last time, I asked the same questions but I don't recall you answering them then. I'm guessing you won't manage to now, either. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. This assumes the existence of particles, or something that has these properties. What is that? It's easy to throw out a challenge when you refuse to address any questions properly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out. And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or actual truth about VIEWS of simultaneity from different frames. That is standard relativity which I accept completely. But you still find it impossible to understand we can DEDUCE or calculate an ACTUAL physical simultaneity irrespective of VIEWS of it. And just as proper time invariance is NOT ANY VIEW but a deduction or calculation, we CAN use deductions and calculations that DO NOT correspond to any particular view to determine relativistic truth That such a methodology is permissible? Do you agree that the symmetric relationship defined by the twins executing the exact same proper accelerations at their exact same proper times is a meaningful physical concept? That we can speak meaningfully about a symmetric relationship? You've been referring to it as if you do. Note that the twins certainly consider it a meaningful physical scenario because they can exchange and execute specific flight plans on that basis. If so you agree that some frames preserve that real physical relationship and some don't? If so please tell me why if we want to analyze that ACTUAL real physical relationship we should not choose a frame that preserves it? And second, do you agree my method is consistently calculating something, and that something is transitive, even if you don't agree it's a physically meaningful concept? If not then please try to prove it's not unambiguous and transitive, using MY definitions of MY theory rather than your 3 points. In other words assume it and then try to disprove it works. Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Let me ask you one simple question. In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip? If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up? It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR ACTUAL TRUTH ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an actual truth that they are the same age or an actual truth that they are different ages. These things are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the same y coordinates in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on different worldlines have the same t coordinate in any given inertial coordinate system, nothing more. What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the exact same actual ages when they meet? Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they do not have the same actual ages, I simply say there is no objective truth about which ages are actually simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out exactly ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the entire trip. At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that. There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses because they are in the same point of space and time by your operational reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 correlation of proper times. Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire trip to any limit of accuracy we wish. Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during EVERY MOMENT of the trip. Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an observation. If he looks at his age clock, that's a direct measurement that is not specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his age just as easily. A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct measurement. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views. Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing proper ages are invariant, how can you still maintain they'll observe A at some other age than their calculation if you agree all frames will predict exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at that event? Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar with relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an age, and anyway it's quite possible to have an inertial coordinate system where he's at rest but his age still doesn't match the coordinate time, because his birth is assigned some time coordinate different from t=0. Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from our frame. Actual physical measurements can be seen by any observer, like the example of looking at the age clock of someone you're in motion relative to, so there's nothing that one person can observe that someone else cannot observe just because they're in a different rest frame, if by observe you mean measure using a physical instrument. Of course, actual physical measurements may be interpreted differently depending on what frame we use--for example, if I see an object pass the x=10 meters mark on some ruler when the clock there reads t=5 seconds, and later pass the x=20 meters mark on the same ruler when the clock there reads t=6 seconds, then if I am using a frame that defines the ruler and clocks to be at rest and the clocks to be synchronized, I'll say these measurements imply the object had a velocity of 10 meters per second
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me restate it: Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during EVERY minimum time interval of the trip EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CRISS CROSSES. We have confirmed there are proper age correlations (at every second) for the criss cross trip but it's exactly the same in principle as any non criss cross trip. Therefore there must also be proper age correlations (at every second) for ALL symmetric trips. Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the entire trip. At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that. There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses because they are in the same point of space and time by your operational reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 correlation of proper times. Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each crossing-point. Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire trip to any limit of accuracy we wish. The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation throughout the trip. Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during EVERY MOMENT of the trip. Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an observation. If he looks at his age clock, that's a direct measurement that is not specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his age just as easily. A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct measurement. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views. Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing proper ages are invariant, how can you still maintain they'll observe A at some other age than their calculation if you agree all frames will predict exactly
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that there is any correlation of actual ages possible. Is that correct? Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the entire trip. At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that. There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses because they are in the same point of space and time by your operational reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 correlation of proper times. Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each crossing-point. Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire trip to any limit of accuracy we wish. The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation throughout the trip. Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during EVERY MOMENT of the trip. Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an observation. If he looks at his age clock, that's a direct measurement that is not specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his age just as easily. A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct measurement. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views. Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing proper ages are invariant, how can you still maintain they'll observe A at some other age than their calculation if you agree all frames will predict exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at that event? Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar with relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an age
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, OK good, that's what I assumed you meant. BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1 correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose their 1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP! The way you state it this is EITHER OR. Either there is a 1:1 at rest, but if they are NOT at rest in the very slightest amount then they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose any 1:1 age correlation. Now if you do NOT agree to that then you are forced to try to claim that it's a matter of degree then you have to come up with some mathematical function that tells us what VARYING AMOUNT of 1:1 age correlation holds with what amount of relative motion. What defines the degree of 1:1 age correlation or lack thereof? I certainly don't think relativity theory has any such function. For relativity it is absolutely either or. Is this not correct? Or, on the other hand if you use simple logic from my many proofs you just admit that any two twins ALWAYS have a 1:1 actual real proper age correlation in all situations. And that is is always unambiguously calculable in a manner that all observers agree to, but that is not in general observable. And this problem and all the other problems simply go away Which is it? Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there is any unique actual truth about the CORRELATION between their ages, i.e. whether or not they reach the same age simultaneously (of course there is still a unique truth about each one's age at any specific event on his worldline). They do reach the same age simultaneously in their comoving inertial frame, but this frame's judgments can't be considered any more valid than a different inertial frame. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Brent, You claim my p-time theory sounds outrageous but you haven't been able to meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works that I've made to Jesse. For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of twins separated by distance in relative motion but there is when the twins are at rest relative to each other even at distance. But what if the twins are separated by a great distance and just start walking away from each other? Do they then magically somehow COMPLETELY LOSE ALL their 1:1 correlation of proper ages? If not, ithen the DEGREE OF CORRELATION of proper ages must be dependent on the amount of relative motion in contradiction to how most interpret relativistic non-simultaneity? My point is that Jesse and I are having a real detailed discussion of P-time theory, and for someone not following the details of that discussion to pass judgment on it without actually engaging with the theory is pretty presumptuous. I'd be happy for you to join the discussion if you think you are up to it Or to discuss my theory of how spaceCLOCKtime emerges from quantum events which you claim to be interested in but never actually engage with or ask questions about. I for one look forward to such a discussion Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:39:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the laws of physics depend on our demands that the laws be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant. That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.) Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity. But that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a demand; or at least a strong desiderata. Remember how the neutrino was discovered. If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look for something new we could count as the energy difference. I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or Vic Stenger). IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300 years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out, they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond being a mere accounting process in beta decay, or whatever it was, such as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode). Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby achieve conservation. I don't think the general conservation of energy was considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was seriously entertained in the case of beta decay. But the idea that the laws of physics should not depend on time or place goes back much further and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also metaphysical. Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a universal clock. How would it sound to put forth a theory that reference a specific time? No one would accept it as fundamental. Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly detected, and scientists were duly surprised. Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem. I don't claim it's an absolute requirement (notice I said desiderata) but it's surprising how much you can get out of symmetry principles. Did you read Stenger's essay? My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant theory, then we'll know what's really real. I don't think they pay enough attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics. Brent I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a postmodernist take on how scientists operate. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Bruno, This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have no direct knowledge of the universe. They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum scope IS TRUTH. In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and you come nearer to truth. Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved. Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From. In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing out of our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of reality, or is it an emergent phenomena? Chris In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic, or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably redundant or wrong. I gave more that one TOE as examples. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing ACTUAL physical facts. E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all sorts of different ages but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this? Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand that all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. This is quite obvious from the age example above, but it also applies to the actual relationship BETWEEN TWINS in my examples. The relationship between twins is exactly that, it is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONLY THOSE TWINS. Of course you can come up with frames in which that relationship is VIEWED differently, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the actual relationship between the twins TO THEMSELVES which is what my theory is based on because that is the ACTUAL REALITY of that physical situation. It is not just some arbitrary VIEW of that reality, it is the REALITY ITSELF. My theory recognizes the need to concentrate on actual physical fact as opposed to VIEWS of physical facts. There is a simple CRITERION to determine whether we are talking about PHYSICAL FACT or a VIEW of a physical fact. If the parties TO THE FACT AGREE on their views of the fact then that agreed view probably represents the actual physical fact. If they DO NOT agree then this disagreement represents VIEWS of physical facts rather than the FACTS THEMSELVES. I can perhaps think of a few explainable exceptions but this is the generally applicable criterion. For example the different ages of the twins when they meet is AGREED by both twins. Thus it is a physical fact. But the different ages of twins in relative motion is NOT AGREED by both twins. Thus those are VIEWS OF FACTS, RATHER THAN THE FACTS THEMSELVES. An absolutely crucial distinction in understanding what relativity is all about. If we can agree on this obvious point, and that we CAN establish a 1:1 proper time correlation on this basis, then I look forward to considering your example which you claim PROVES this 1:1 proper time correlation is not transitive. I'm pretty sure it is transitive when properly understood but am certainly willing to consider your 'proof'. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation. Why? You give no rational justification for why reality should coincide with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical with any sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple symmetrical pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJas you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich PROVES that a contradiction follows fr ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, To address your questions: 1. Yes, of course the choice of their own frame is a matter of convention. But that does NOT mean that all frames are equal when it comes to accurately representing some particular physical fact or relationship. 2. The their experience in my symmetric example is the actual physical fact that they know their accelerations are symmetric because they exchanged flight plans to ensure that. And because their ACTUAL EXPERIENCE is the fact that they both can feel their proper accelerations AND time them by their own proper clocks to ensure they are in accordance with the flight plans they exchanged. By simple logic they then KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that their proper times are always in synch. AND they confirm this by meeting with the exact same clock readings that they AGREE upon. It is true their OBSERVATIONAL experiences of each other do not reflect this 1:1 proper time correlation but they are SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND that these are NON agreed VIEWS which do NOT reflect the actual physical FACTS of the relationship on which they DO AGREE and thus which is an actual physical fact rather than just views of facts. 3. I DO want to address your 'proof of non-transitivity. But for the sake of clarity and saving time can you please just restate it in the simplest possible terms? I'll make it easier by restating my thesis concisely. I claim: a. That any two observers can always establish an agreed 1:1 correlation of their proper times BETWEEN THEMSELVES. (This does NOT MEAN that A's t is always = B's t'. It means there is a 1:1 correlation that both A and B agree upon.) b. That this 1:1 relationship will be transitive in the sense that if A's t :: B's t', and B's t' :: C's t'', then C's t'' :: A's t. Assuming my method of establishing the 1:1 correlation what's your proof this is incorrect? Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:28:01 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you are replying to... Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate his OWN proper time with that of the other twin. But you agreed earlier (in your post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/PYrVLII1ClYJ) that the idea of calling the comoving inertial frame of an observer their own frame is purely a matter of CONVENTION, not anything imposed on them by reality. So, we could easily choose a different convention--one in which each twin defines their own frame, or what they experience themselves, as the inertial frame in which they have a velocity of 0.99c along the x-axis. If they both agreed to define the facts as experienced by the twins themselves in this way, by convention, they could also agree on a 1:1 correlation between their proper times, one that would be different from the 1:1 correlation they'd get if they used the comoving frame. Do you wish to take back your earlier agreement that phrases like their own frame, their view, what they observe/experience are only by CONVENTION understood to refer to the comoving inertial frame, that this isn't something forced on us by reality? If you still agree this is a matter of convention, then it seems to me that trying to use something that's merely a matter of human linguistic convention to prove something absolute about reality is obviously silly, like trying to prove something about the essential nature of God by noting that according to the spelling conventions of English, God is dog spelled backwards. All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of the twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish whether the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1. Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't require input from any other frames to do that. That isn't obvious at all--I don't see how the symmetric frame reflects their experience in any way that isn't purely a matter of convention, they certainly don't experience their proper times and velocities being equal
Re: Block Universes
Liz, Hmmm, that's exactly what I said. So why are you disagreeing with yourself again? Looks like you are out of touch both with reality and English comprehension... Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:51:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing ACTUAL physical facts. E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all sorts of different ages Edgar div class=gmail_e ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an observation. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views. Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from our frame. That's what I do to establish 1:1 correlations of actual ages. I use calculations that trump Views, that trump observations. We don't always have to use frame views to establish relativistic truth. Do you agree with that? You must if you accept proper age invariance. Also note that the ticks of the symmetric twins' own comoving clocks serve as event markers. So if the proper ages of the twins are invariant to all observers, then all observers can simply observe their clock tick markers reading exactly the same for the same proper ages of both twins. That PROVES the 1:1 correlation that the real actual ages of the symmetric twins always occur at the same clock tick markers and thus they are the same proper ages at the same times. Thus all observers agree that the proper ages of both twins occur at the same clock tick marker readings of the twins own proper clocks. This is one more proof the actual ages of the symmetric twins are equal during the trip, and EVERY OBSERVER AGREES ON THIS. Thus it is a real physical fact. 2. What all these quotes mean in saying that all frames are equally valid is that all observer VIEWS are real actual VIEWS of reality. That they are what the observer actually observes. I certainly agree with that. However as I've pointed out they don't all preserve the actual physical reality of SPECIFIC facts. I just pointed out how they don't with respect to the invariance of proper times which are not observable views but calculations. Proper age invariance is a physical fact at odds with the notion that all frames are equally valid as anything else than VIEWS. 3. No. By the different ages of twins in relative motion are not agreed and thus are views rather than actual physical facts I mean just that, and just what I've always said. The 1:1 correlation is NOT the VIEW of one twin of the other's clock. It is a logical calculation and not a view that establishes that 1:1. 4. **You now say you DON'T CLAIM YOU PROVE P-TIME SIMULTANEITY IS NOT TRANSITIVE!. OK, great. Wonderful! That's progress, and a complete change from what you said previously. You then are apparently trying to prove something else. But please, respectfully, you are trying to disprove MY theory, so please let ME state MY theory and then try to disprove that rather than trying to disprove something that isn't my actual theory. I just gave a concise statement of my theory earlier today. Can you disprove it or can't you? Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing ACTUAL physical facts. E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all sorts of different ages I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin), then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what Alice's age is at the same moment that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any actual physical fact about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule out presentism since there could still be a metaphysical fact about simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical predictions). but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this? Don't change her actual age WHEN? Doesn't change her age at some specific event on her worldline, or doesn't change what her age is now at the same moment that some distant observer like Bob reaches a particular age, say 40? If the first I agree that she has an actual age at any given event on her wrodline
Re: Is information physical?
Liz, Well, we already know we get your knowledge of physics from TV shows so why not your knowledge, or lack thereof, of other subjects as well? :-) And you should really learn the difference between antiques and antiquities. You just display your continuing dismal ignorance by confusing them... Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:08:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: If one can believe TV shows, antiques dealers are a bunch of rogues hoping to fleece old dears out of a fortune by giving them a tiny payout for some valuable item they've kept in the attic for decades and don't realise the true value of. On 2 March 2014 12:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: information does need a substrate in which to manifest. That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS mathematical. On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job. John K Clark He's so not as cool as me. I'm like - antiques dealing is not for me. But tracking down rare antiquities in a bashed up fedora I will so like do -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Yes, but what you are saying here is just that it is impossible to unambiguously OBSERVE that the proper ages are the same. I agree. But it is possible to unambiguously DEDUCE and CALCULATE that they MUST be the same, which is all my theory says. If we can use calculation and deduction with respect to an invariant notion of proper ages that we CANNOT unambiguously observe, why can't we use calculation and deduction with proper age simultaneity as well? Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Let me ask you one simple question. In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip? If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up? It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR ACTUAL TRUTH ABOUT SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an actual truth that they are the same age or an actual truth that they are different ages. These things are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the same y coordinates in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on different worldlines have the same t coordinate in any given inertial coordinate system, nothing more. What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the exact same actual ages when they meet? Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they do not have the same actual ages, I simply say there is no objective truth about which ages are actually simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out exactly ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is information physical?
All, In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality, Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their personal simulations of reality. Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus (non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of being. A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the underlying water (existence) in which they arise. And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of information forms that can arise within our universe. In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. It is only abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the current information state of the universe. In fact, if one observes reality with trained eyes, one can actually directly observe that the only thing out there is just various kinds of information. After all ANYTHING that is observable is by definition information. Only information is observable, ONLY information exists... It is the fact that this information exists in the actual realm of existence that makes it real and actual and enables it to compute a real information universe. Edgar On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: http://edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory I don't recall if the list has discussed these ideas of David Deutsch recently. The link is to an Edge interview in which he discusses his view that mathematicians are mistaken if they believe that information or computation are purely abstract objects. He says that both are in fact physical, but to justify that assertion we may need deeper principles of physics than the existing ones. He proposes constructor theory as a candidate. Implications for comp (or anything else for that matter)? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Chris, For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. This is where the math comes from. If a computational universe exists, and ours does, it must be structured logico-mathematically. But this does NOT men all human H-math exists, it just means that a fundamental logico-mathematical structure I call R-math (reality math) exists. Just the minimum that is necessary to compute the actual universe is all that is needed. All the rest is H-math, and we can't assume that H-math is part of R-math. In fact it is provably different. The big mistake Bruno makes is assuming that H-math is R-math. It isn't. H-math is a generalized approximation of R-math, which is then vastly extended far beyond R-math. In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality, Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their personal simulations of reality. Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus (non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of being. A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the underlying water (existence) in which they arise. And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of information forms that can arise within our universe. In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. It is only abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the current information state of the universe. In fact, if one observes reality with trained eyes, one can actually directly observe that the only thing out there is just various kinds of information. After all ANYTHING that is observable is by definition information. Only information is observable, ONLY information exists... It is the fact that this information exists in the actual realm of existence that makes it real and actual and enables it to compute a real information universe. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 2:20:23 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: Personally the notion that all that exists is comp information – encoded on what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some cling to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very real. However when you get right down to it all we have is measured values of things and meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that we can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we measure it. I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit each day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how in a sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every possible outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had never read before. Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of parallelism and vastness of scale of the information system in which it is self-emergent. Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a substrate medium upon which to encode itself; information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on some substrate system. I would like to avoid the infinite regression of stopping at the point of describing systems as existing upon other and requiring other substrate systems that themselves require substrates themselves described as information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally. It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a very simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple binary state machine could suffice, given enough bits. But what are the bits encoded on? At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to where we first started…. How did that arise or
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Craig, Well again, since you have such an anthropomorphized view of reality in which everything in the universe seems to be modeled on human functioning, I don't see any meaningful way we can discuss these issues Best, Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:29:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Chris, For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. Unless consistency itself is local. We see this when we wake up from dreams. It is shockingly easy for our minds to adopt dream surreality as logical and consistent. This is where the math comes from. If a computational universe exists, and ours does, it must be structured logico-mathematically. That doesn't mean that logico-mathematical structure itself must be primitive, only that the sensory modes which we use to address universal conditions use logical and mathematical methods of representation. The presence of sense itself, however, and the capacity for sense to be channeled into different modes in the first place, is not proscribed by logic or mathematics, nor can it be explained adequately (only as a skeletal reflection). But this does NOT men all human H-math exists, it just means that a fundamental logico-mathematical structure I call R-math (reality math) exists. But R-math, and 'existence' require an even more fundamental capacity to appreciate and participate in what would later be partially abstracted as R-math, which would itself be partially abstracted as H-math. Just the minimum that is necessary to compute the actual universe is all that is needed. All the rest is H-math, and we can't assume that H-math is part of R-math. In fact it is provably different. The big mistake Bruno makes is assuming that H-math is R-math. It isn't. H-math is a generalized approximation of R-math, which is then vastly extended far beyond R-math. If the universe could be reduced to the minimum that is necessary to compute, then consciousness would not serve any function. Since the whole point of reducing the real universe to a computation is to pursue the supremacy of function, we have to decide whether computationalism is wrong or whether we are wrong for thinking that there is any such thing as conscious experience. In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality, Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their personal simulations of reality. Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus (non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of being. If information needs a substrate, then it is the substrate which is actually what the universe is made of. I disagree that it is simply anything, and would say that it is not non-dimensional but trans-dimensional, as by definition it must include all opportunities to discern dimension. This foundation, which I call sense, I suggest is the presence not just of reality, but fantasy as well, and not just ontological energy, but the sole meta-ontological capacity - the primordial identity of pansentivity. A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the underlying water (existence) in which they arise. And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of information forms that can arise within our universe. In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. I agree that the wave vs water is a fair metaphor for information vs sense, but I would say the opposite. Without exception everything is sense only. Information is only the refreshment of sense, and it is through information that sense is constantly changing. Besides being pure and clear like water, sense is also timeless, so that it is full of fish eating each other from the past and the hypothetical futures. It is only abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the current information state of the universe. Do computational forms really interact with each other, or do we invest their simple inertia with the pathetic fallacy? In fact, if one observes
Re: Block Universes
Bruno, Your contention that there is no evidence for a universe is simply delusional. The very fact you can make any statement absolutely PROVES a universe of some kind. Your contention is so absurd it's laughable.. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:14:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stathis, At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe. There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual aristotelian sense of the word). But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present moment. Not 3p evidences, and the relativity theory makes it senseless (as Jesse made rather clear here). Your p-time seems transitive, and this implies p-time is block-time. The experience of our existence in a present moment is the most fundamental empirical observation of our existence. It is a 1p evidence. It is not sharable. Using that type of evidence is not allow in polite conversation. And all science, all knowledge, is based on empirical observation. OK. But consciousness and flowing time are not empirical evidence. They are complex data top explain, but cannot be taken for granted, or even well defined. So, in the face of this obvious weight of evidence, why do you insist on a block universe instead of a universe in which time flows? Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and accept what there is NO evidence for? That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and indeed, as you assume comp, you could understand that there is no universe. The notion is close to inconsistent, and explanatively empty. Physicists measure numbers, and infer relation among numbers. Then even cosmological theories usually avoid metaphysical commitment. This is done by physicalist philosophers, and can make sense, but then not together with the assumption that the brain functions mechanically at some level. If you doubt this, then you must find a flaw in the UD Argument. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Stathis, I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time is already FLOWING. Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in a block universe becomes a matter of blind faith, rather t ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, With regards to your contention in your first paragraph below it may express the correct view of frame DEPENDENT simultaneity, but that is NOT the point I'm making. I'll try to explain more clearly. This example is revised to attempt to conform with your previous objections so please bear with me. I'll keep it short... Take twins who start and finish a trip with the same proper ages. Define their trips as symmetric in the sense they both experience exactly equivalent proper accelerations at the exact same moments by their own proper clocks. (This is a new definition of symmetric.) This is why their ages must be the same when they meet. Now first I still maintain that in this case it is simple logic to conclude that there is a 1:1 correlation of their proper times during the trip, but I think we can now do better than that. Take the beginnings and ends of every phase of their acceleration changes, beginning with the start of the trip, as event markers. Now you, yourself, tell us that the proper times between every one of these markers is invariant. Now the question is whether these two invariant proper time sequences are synchronized or not. Whether there is a 1:1 correlation of proper times as each twin passes through these event markers that are defined identically in terms of each twin's proper acceleration? You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation. In any frame that PRESERVES that symmetry the observer WILL conclude that the proper times of both twins between all markers will be exactly the same, and thus the proper times of the twins at every one of these symmetric markers will be equal. Thus we do have a natural 1:1 correlation between the proper times of the twins that is also consistent with the direct observational agreement of proper times at start and finish, which we must account for in any accurate analysis. So my point is that there is a REAL AND ACTUAL SYMMETRY between the trips of the twins, and thus to get an accurate view of that real symmetry we must analyze it in a frame that preserves that symmetry. And when we do this we DO achieve a 1:1 correlation of proper ages during the trip, which must obviously be correct if they are to meet with the same ages. My whole approach depends on recognizing the difference between what is REALLY HAPPENING to someone as opposed to how any other observer may VIEW what is happening to that OTHER person. It is always what is actually happening to someone that is the reality irrespective of other's VIEWS of that reality. You consistently present the correct relativistic analysis of relativistic VIEWS without recognizing there is an ACTUAL REALITY involved that can be properly analyzed only by frames that recognize and preserve that reality. Do you agree that if we choose a frame that preserves the real and actual symmetry of the trip that we do get EQUAL proper times between all markers on the twins respective trips? And thus that we CAN establish a 1:1 correlation of proper times in this case? Edgar On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:11:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is ONLY one's reading of one's own clock (as I stated) it IS possible for any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up with the same answer. Is that correct? For a given clock C, it is possible for any observer to calculate the proper time between events ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE, and everyone will get the same answer (it is frame-invariant). But what is NOT frame-invariant is the answer to a question like what is the proper time on that distant clock RIGHT NOW, at the same moment that my own clock shows some specific time T--in that case you aren't talking about a specific event on C's worldline, you're talking about a specific event on your worldline (the event of your clock showing time T), and asking which event on C's worldline is simultaneous with that. Since simultaneity is frame-dependent in relativity, there is no frame-invariant answer to this second type of question. If so that's precisely what I've been claiming all along! That it's always possible for any observer to calculate any other observer's PROPER TIME. Why did I get the strong impression you were claiming that wasn't so from your previous replies? That is precisely the whole crux of my case, and precisely what I've been claiming In my view that is exactly what is necessary to establish a 1:1 correlation between proper times. If everyone can always calculate everyone's proper times including their own in an UNAMBIGUOUS INVARIANT WAY then why isn't it possible
Re: Is information physical?
Spud, Based on a computational universe all things are just information states. Thus computational changes to any information state constitutes a generic experience (what I call an Xperience). Thus any information state is in effect a generic observer. This is a neat and useful definition because then human observers are seen as just special cases of a universal phenomenon and we neatly incorporate observers as an essential aspect of reality. We can then even view the universe as consisting of Xperience only. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:51:00 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Ok, Thanks. We're back to the Observer again, where all things are decided at the quantum. From here on the questions tumble forth as a cascade, on whether the Observer is conscious, who is the Observer, what is the Observer? -Original Message- From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 5:15 pm Subject: Re: Is information physical? On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:01:51PM -0500, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Not to be a dick, but is not information or data perforations, and pulses, in mater and energy? This is how we recognize information from background noise, correct? Is there a third state of reality that is not matter or energy? Only when interpreted by an observer. An electrical circuit has only voltages and currents, not bits. To an observer, a voltage on a data line might be interpreted as 1 if it is greater than 3V, and zero if it is less than 1V. In between those two thresholds, the voltage might be determinate, but the information is not. The third state, as you call it, is a semantically different picture where things are described in terms of whether some physical state is the same as, or different from, some other physical state, according to the interpretation of an observer. From that, comes bits, and all the other information-based quantities. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you are replying to... Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate his OWN proper time with that of the other twin. All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of the twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish whether the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1. Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't require input from any other frames to do that. MY theory then attempts to prove these correlations are transitive on a pair by pair basis, not by considering all irrelevant frames and trying to establish some invariance that I agree is impossible. Does this make it clear what my theory is trying to do? The theory is based on pair wise correlations, not invariance Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation. Why? You give no rational justification for why reality should coincide with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical with any sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple symmetrical pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJas you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich PROVES that a contradiction follows from your assumptions, given ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Bruno, Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I answered several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking the same questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you do so incoherently and only in terms of your own very rigid worldview. Well perhaps that's the way that 1p zombies 1p clones operate? Anyway I do answer all serious questions... Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:42:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Can you agree to this at least? To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post: 'If you continue to ask me Do you agree? type questions while ignoring the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, even if it's something like I find your questions ambiguous or you've asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, please narrow it down to one per post.' If you decide to treat me with the same basic level of respect I have treated you, rather than making a show of asking me questions while you contemptuously ignore my requests that you address mine, then I will keep going with this. If not, I have better things to do. I think some people does not argue, they fake it only. Edgar does not answer the question asked. Bruno Jesse -- 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+unsubscribe javascript: ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is information physical?
John, I agree that the substrate that information manifests in is NOT physical, it is abstract in the sense of no physicality. But the information that constitutes the universe is REAL, so the substrate it exists within is the real actual presence of existence itself. That's what brings it to life and makes it real and actual... And yes that's me. Thanks for your kind comment! Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: information does need a substrate in which to manifest. That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS mathematical. On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is information physical?
Craig, I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The substrate is itself formless (somewhat analogous to the concept of Tao). Within that arises all the forms whose computational interactions compute the current state of the universe. These computations compute on the basis of the laws of nature which in this model are just as much a part of reality as the information states they compute. So what we call physics is how humans mentally model and try to understand this system in terms of their H-math. Or if you wanted you could say that R-computations are the actual R-physics to distinguish that from H-physics. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:04:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: John, I agree that the substrate that information manifests in is NOT physical, it is abstract in the sense of no physicality. But the information that constitutes the universe is REAL, so the substrate it exists within is the real actual presence of existence itself. That's what brings it to life and makes it real and actual... If the real actual presence of 'existence' itself is what brings information to life and makes it real and actual, why isn't that substrate what we call physics and what REALLY constitutes the universe? If information cannot be or do anything without the substrate, then how can we say that information is the important part? And yes that's me. Thanks for your kind comment! Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: information does need a substrate in which to manifest. That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS mathematical. On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Brent, Yes, that's consistent with the theory I present in my book. Specifically that computational reality itself is continuous in the sense that there are NO separate individual things. This continuous reality does however contain overlapping computational domains based on dynamic computational boundaries that emerge naturally at various scales. However it is very difficult for organisms to compute their functioning on this basis so they had to evolve a different method to improve their functioning. So part of what organisms do in the mental simulations of reality on the basis of which they compute their functioning, is to model the actual continuous information of reality into discrete things and their relationships. This is done because it is much easier to compute organismic functioning on the basis of a small set discrete individual classical scale things than a huge dynamic mass of continuous elemental information. The computations become many orders of magnitude simpler. So as Cooper apparently suggests, the notion of a world consisting of distinct objects, is how humans model reality rather than reality itself. This also alludes to the origin of H-math from R-math. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:58:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote: If it's all math, then where does math come from? Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2. Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper The Origin of Reason and Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Brent, Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz talking about your theory. If so I'll be glad to answer. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote: If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how it stacks up against Everett et al. But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'. On the contrary, I am interested in your theory of quantum randomness IF you can flesh it out. For example how do you describe a Stern-Gerlach experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an EPR experiment, Bose-Einstein condensate,...? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Guys, David Koch can't be all bad since he is a major financial supporter of the PBS 'Nova' programs. His name appears in the opening credits of all of them... Edgar On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:10:33 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Stop right there. You complain about the Koch's but say zero about George Soros, and about other Dem suppliers like Gates, Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, the Blackstone Group, Hollywood billionaires, which end up being not a technical answer to a technical problem of clean energy, but rather, the ideology of a world movement of Neo-Stalinists. Billionaires which support the State, connected with a Vanguard Proletariat of power hungry academics, unions, Billionaire elitists, and the willful underclass. Solar either works it doesn't. Engineering and physics have no ideology. Enemies? You mean those organizations like Retake America that claimed to be charitable organizations not engaging in any political activity in order to conceal their donors? And the FBI is going after who? The Koch brothers? Rev. Hagee? Rush Limbaugh? They can't seem to find anyone guilty of anything in the housing bubble debacle, but they can sure bust some medical marijuana sellers in Seattle. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 10:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 2/26/2014 3:22 PM, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Here in the States, we have the executive branch using the IRS and the FBI to go after enemies of the progressives. Enemies? You mean those organizations like Retake America that claimed to be charitable organizations not engaging in any political activity in order to conceal their donors? And the FBI is going after who? The Koch brothers? Rev. Hagee? Rush Limbaugh? They can't seem to find anyone guilty of anything in the housing bubble debacle, but they can sure bust some medical marijuana sellers in Seattle. You have the vast expansion of the NSA spying on the American people and indeed people worldwide. Which was proposed under Reagan and implemented under W. A statement by the head of NSA was that We are not spying to halt terrorists.. So what are they spying for, our benefit? BHO has tried to pick tech winners but he cannot change physics nor economics. Think Solyndra. How about think Detroit. You simply trust too much, or despise non Statists too much. People want clean energy, there is just no new tech to the dirty. And you're just an ideologue government hater dreaming of Galt's Gulch. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still relevant after reading this post which I think solves the 1:1 age correlation to your satisfaction. If you find any of the terminology confusing please let me know what you think it SHOULD be rather than just saying it's wrong. Twins A and B start at the same location in deep space. No acceleration, no gravitation. Their ages are obviously the same, and their age clocks are running at the same rate. They exchange flight plans and embark on their separate trips according to those flight plans. Now the only effects that will alter the rates of their age clocks are acceleration or gravitation. But each twin can continually measure the amount of acceleration or gravitation he experiences with a scale. So each twin can always calculate how much his age has slowed relative to what his age WOULD HAVE BEEN had he NOT experienced any gravitation or acceleration. Let's call that his 'inertial age', the age he WOULD have been had he NOT experienced any acceleration or gravitation. So each twin always knows what inertial age corresponds to his actual age. And because each twin has the exact flight plan of the other twin, he also can calculate what inertial age corresponds to the actual age of the other twin at any point on his trip because the flight plan tells him what all accelerations and gravitational effects will be. Thus it is a simple, frame independent matter for both twins to get a 1:1 correspondence between their respective actual ages in terms of their inertial ages since their inertial ages will always be the same. If A is age a' when his inertial age is I', and B is age a'' when his inertial age is I', then A will be actual age a' when B is actual age a'', and we can always establish such a 1:1 correspondence of actual ages for any actual age of either. And both twins will always AGREE on this 1:1 correlation of their actual ages. Note it is not even necessary to exchange flight plans. Each twin can just continually transmit a light signal to the other giving his current actual age in terms of his inertial age. That again allows both twins to correlate their actual ages. So this gives us a frame independent way for any two observers who initially synchronize their inertial ages to the same arbitrary value to always establish an UN-ambiguous, AGREED 1:1 correlation of their actual ages. Do you agree? Edgar On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:45:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Can you agree to this at least? To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post: 'If you continue to ask me Do you agree? type questions while ignoring the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, even if it's something like I find your questions ambiguous or you've asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, please narrow it down to one per post.' If you decide to treat me with the same basic level of respect I have treated you, rather than making a show of asking me questions while you contemptuously ignore my requests that you address mine, then I will keep going with this. If not, I have better things to do. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, First the answer to your question at the end of your post. Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving inertial frame which is the way I was using it. Now to your replies to my post beginning with your first paragraph. Certainly there are equations that do what you say they do, but I don't see why what I say isn't correct based on that. Why do you claim it is impossible to just take proper acceleration and calculate what my age would have been if there was not any proper acceleration? An observer knows what his proper acceleration is, and he knows how much various accelerations are slowing his proper time relative to what it would be if those accelerations didn't happen. He has a frame independent measure of acceleration. He knows that particular acceleration will slow his proper time by 1/2 so he can define and calculate an 'inertial time' whose rate is 2x his proper rate. You seem to think it would be necessary to MEASURE THIS FROM SOME FRAME for the concept to be true. It's not an observable measure, it's the CALCULATION of a useful variable. Therefore there is NO requirement that it's measurable in any frame because it's a frame independent concept, a calculation rather than an observable. Therefore I don't see any reason to accept your criticism in this paragraph. If you disagree, which I'm sure you will, then explain why this concept of inertial time is not frame independent and valid. Perhaps a clear example would help? Another way to approach this is do you deny that if we drop a coordinate grid on an area of EMPTY space that the coordinate clocks at the grid intersections all run at the same rate? And if not, why? And don't start making up other frames on me here. Just compare the proper times of those coordinate clocks. Do they all run at the same rate or not? Edgar On Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:56:08 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still relevant after reading this post which I think solves the 1:1 age correlation to your satisfaction. That's the problem, you continually come up with new arguments and explanations that you think resolve the questions I asked and therefore mean you don't need to address them, but inevitably I disagree. Please just respect my judgment about what's relevant TO ME, and answer the questions that I ask ALONGSIDE any new arguments or explanations you might want to supply. You say above I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still relevant after reading this post, so I will hold you to that by repeating a question I'd like you to answer at the end of this post. If you find any of the terminology confusing please let me know what you think it SHOULD be rather than just saying it's wrong. Twins A and B start at the same location in deep space. No acceleration, no gravitation. Their ages are obviously the same, and their age clocks are running at the same rate. They exchange flight plans and embark on their separate trips according to those flight plans. Now the only effects that will alter the rates of their age clocks are acceleration or gravitation. But each twin can continually measure the amount of acceleration or gravitation he experiences with a scale. Let's consider just the issue of accelerations in flat SR spacetime for now, since it's simpler. The problem with this statement is that although it's true each twin can measure their proper acceleration, there is no FRAME-INDEPENDENT equation in relativity for how a given acceleration affects the rates of their age clocks, the only equations dealing with clock rates and acceleration in SR deal with how changes in coordinate velocity (determined by acceleration) affect the rate a clock is ticking relative to coordinate time in some specific coordinate system. So each twin can always calculate how much his age has slowed relative to what his age WOULD HAVE BEEN had he NOT experienced any gravitation or acceleration. Let's call that his 'inertial age', the age he WOULD have been had he NOT experienced any acceleration or gravitation. I see no way to define this in any frame-independent way. The only version of this that relativity would allow you to calculate is what your age would have been at a PARTICULAR COORDINATE TIME if you had remained inertial, and you can compare that to what your age is at that SAME COORDINATE TIME given your acceleration history. But this comparison obviously
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Remember we are talking ONLY about PROPER TIMES, or actual ages. These DO NOT HAVE any MEANING IN OTHER FRAMES than that of the actual frame of the observer in question. So your comments that an observer's age will be measured differently in other frames, while obviously true, is NOT the observer's PROPER AGE or PROPER TIME. Every observer has one and only one proper age, that is his proper age to himself, NOT to anyone else, not in any other frame. That holds for all your comments about age effects of acceleration being different in different frames. Of course they can be but that is NOT PROPER ACTUAL AGE. So I have to disregard all those comments because they don't apply to PROPER TIMES OR ACTUAL AGES. Proper time is ONLY one's reading of one's own clock, NOT one's own clock viewed from some other frame. Correct? Now a very basic question. Do you agree or disagree that all PROPER TIMES run at the same rate unless some effect causes them to run at different rates? Again this is NOT how clocks appear to run in any other frames but their OWN. If you do not agree then please explain why not and please PROVE to me that PROPER TIMES do not run at the same rate unless there is some actual effect that causes them to run at different rates. Edgar On Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:07:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, First the answer to your question at the end of your post. Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving inertial frame which is the way I was using it. Thanks, it seemed like you might have been suggesting there was some natural truth to calculations done in the comoving frame of two obserervers at rest relative to each other, even though they could equally well agree to calculate things from the perspective of a totally different frame. Now to your replies to my post beginning with your first paragraph. Certainly there are equations that do what you say they do, but I don't see why what I say isn't correct based on that. Why do you claim it is impossible to just take proper acceleration and calculate what my age would have been if there was not any proper acceleration? I don't claim it's impossible, just that it can only be done relative to a particular frame. I can make statements like I am now 30, but in frame A, if I hadn't accelerated I would now be 20 and I am now 30, but in frame B, if I hadn't accelerated I would now be 25. An observer knows what his proper acceleration is, and he knows how much various accelerations are slowing his proper time relative to what it would be if those accelerations didn't happen. Slowing his proper time only has meaning relative to a particular frame, there is no frame-independent sense in which clocks slow down (or speed up) due to acceleration in relativity. He has a frame independent measure of acceleration. He knows that particular acceleration will slow his proper time by 1/2 so he can define and calculate an 'inertial time' whose rate is 2x his proper rate. Given the exact same proper acceleration, there may be one frame A where at the end of the acceleration his clock has slowed by 1/2 (relative to the time coordinate of that frame), and another frame B where it has slowed by 1/3, and even another frame where it has *sped up* by a factor of 10. Do you disagree? You seem to think it would be necessary to MEASURE THIS FROM SOME FRAME for the concept to be true. It's not an observable measure, it's the CALCULATION of a useful variable. Therefore there is NO requirement that it's measurable in any frame because it's a frame independent concept, a calculation rather than an observable. Calculations are always calculations of the values of particular numerical quantities, like the rate a clock is ticking. So, what matters is whether the quantity in question is frame-dependent (like velocity, or rate of clock ticking) or frame-independent (like proper time at a specific event on someone's worldine), there is nothing inherent in the notion of calculations that make them frame-independent. Also, *all* calculated quantities in relativity can also be observables--it's straightforward to observe frame-independent quantities like proper time (just look at the clock the observer carries), and frame-dependent ones can also be observed if you have a physical grid of rulers and coordinate clocks as I have described before (for example, to find the rate a clock is ticking relative to a coordinate system, you look at the time T1 it reads as it passes next to a coordinate clock that reads t1, and the time T2 it reads as it passes next to another coordinate clock that reads t2, and then you can just define the average rate over
