On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation
On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because
he brings up a very important issue.
The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread
out' in the fixed common
There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital
information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for
example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical
theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho).
On 28 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called
quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to
the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.
I would expect any
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive.
It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist,
but fundamentally all computations
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your
interpretation address the EPR paradox (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously
Jason,
PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is no
pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one
place in. Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental
non-physical dimensionless information space. What we call space is
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your
interpretation address the
Liz,
What I haven't deciphered in Lisi's theory is what its elementals are. He
seems to have come up with a set of elemental particle properties that
populate his E8 group exactly and completely but they do not all appear to
be commonly recognized particle properties such as charges, spins,
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist.
When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a
fixed background to them these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two
particles is
I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena
which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not
sure however that explaining physical space as information space is
ultimately an improvement. Without linking either one to awareness, the
result is
Most TOEs try to get space-time as emergent from something simpler.
On 28 December 2013 17:43, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I also suspect that quantum makes spacetime rather than being phenomena
which take place in spacetime, if that's what you're proposing. I'm not
sure
Craig,
Yes, I'm proposing that spacetime emerges from quantum events. But your
second question depends on this since if spacetime emerges from quantum
events there can be no physical space since physical space is exactly what
we agreed doesn't exist until it emerges from quantum events which
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is
no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one
place in.
Then what is it interfering with if not itself?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light
On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually
exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than
being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.
If the
On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is
recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them
these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:
Jason,
Answers to
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 7:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL)
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08
On 28 December 2013 19:37, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26,
301 - 323 of 323 matches
Mail list logo