Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Hi Richard , I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu. (At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram) And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an illusion. Interesting. However, I am also a physicist and my string cosmology goes against my religion. As a physicist I am an Aristotelian, but not one who discounts the supernatural. I don't really know what supernatural can mean. Like Gödel said to Einstein, I don't believe in the natural world/science. I believe only in the natural numbers, and in the laws of addition and multiplication. Arbitrary real number are already supernatural for me. So I am pleased to finally understand why I cannot understand you. But what I believe is not related with what I do in my job. I just show that IF my brain (in a weak generalized sense, it is whatever I need to emulate digitally to survive, when assuming comp) is Turing emulable, then physics must be justified entirely by the theology of number (itself part of arithmetic). And I must say that I appreciate your polite and truthful responses esp compared to Quentins and a chicken is a dog sham response. Sometimes Quentin is a bit direct, but I think that he means well and like you, don't use rhetorical tricks unlike some others. PS: I originally said that the CY manifolds were numerable meaning that they can be numbered. Is that incorrect usage? I use enumerable, or countable, both for finite and infinite sets (in that case there is a computable, or not, bijection between the set and the set of natural numbers). Numerable is OK. Important concept get many names. Best, Bruno On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 03:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: So matter is just maya-illusion. Yes. That's the result. UDA shows that if we can survive with a digital brain, by virtue of its infomation handling power (and not some magic), then matter is only appearance in the mind of some (relative) numbers. That's the key point. That is really religion- right? Hmm... The tone used here makes me suspecting that you are using religion in some pejorative sense. But yes it is theology. I insist on this almost at the start: comp is the belief in a form of technological reincarnation, and as such, cannot be justified rationally. We have to bet.. But we can do that bet from evidences (nature exploits replacement all the times, the known laws are all Turing emulable, etc.). It means also that if a scientist says science as shown that we are machine, that scientist is a pseudo-scientist, or a pseudo-priest, or some con who want steal your money. Comp is yes doctor, and it entails the right to say No, doctor. Comp makes number theology the most fundamental science unifying all the others. Indeed. Of course today's theology has not yet come back to the academy, and institutionalized theologies are politicized and used to control people. We are still in an era where we tolerated authoritative arguments in religion (and other human sciences), where actually it is the place where such arguments are the most wrong possible. The enlightenment period was half-enlightenment. All sciences go through, except the most fundamental one: theology. Theology has been scientific only with the Greeks, Chinese and Indian. In Occident it is still a taboo. I like to say: bad faith fears reason, bad reason fears faith. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp). That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Yeah and a chicken is a dog.
Le 29 oct. 2013 03:41, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com a écrit :
So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you
can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in
arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's
belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the
machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp?
No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in
matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp).
That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that
cannot be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the
state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an
infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain
is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations
(like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep
in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable
(by universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but
we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel
said only that the question
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 28 Oct 2013, at 20:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. I am not sure I found a proof of this in your papers. You might elaborate. being enumerable entails capable of being computed, not necessarily capable of (universal) computing (only very special enumerable set can universally compute (the so-called creative set, discovered by Emil Post). It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? I think Quentin answered this. Comp makes the beliefs (by relative- number/machines) in matter derivable from arithmetic. There is no matter per se. Stable matter comes from the first plural coherence of some type of dreams. NUMBER == Machines' dreams === Matter appearances and physical laws. Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion. Comp explains where the hallucination of matter comes from, and should explain why it is persistent. But there is no matter in the ontology. Matter becomes an epistemological/psychological/theological notion. The poet said it: life is but a dream. But it is not necessarily a solipsist one. It can and should be a sort of multi-user video game. I don't believe in ontological primitive matter, but I have almost no doubts about the existence of Richard Ruquist. With comp infinitely many Richard Ruquist's mind states are defined through infinitely many number relations. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com 4:53 AM (2 hours ago) to everything-list On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse. How? Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi- Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of the fine structure constant across the visible universe. The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot be the case if our (generalized) brain is computable. Richard: That does not make sense. If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations (like the one done by the UD). Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any special knowledge. It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by universal machine) strictly included in truth. Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this needs a bit of theoretical computer science). Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 29 Oct 2013, at 03:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: So matter is just maya-illusion. Yes. That's the result. UDA shows that if we can survive with a digital brain, by virtue of its infomation handling power (and not some magic), then matter is only appearance in the mind of some (relative) numbers. That's the key point. That is really religion- right? Hmm... The tone used here makes me suspecting that you are using religion in some pejorative sense. But yes it is theology. I insist on this almost at the start: comp is the belief in a form of technological reincarnation, and as such, cannot be justified rationally. We have to bet.. But we can do that bet from evidences (nature exploits replacement all the times, the known laws are all Turing emulable, etc.). It means also that if a scientist says science as shown that we are machine, that scientist is a pseudo-scientist, or a pseudo-priest, or some con who want steal your money. Comp is yes doctor, and it entails the right to say No, doctor. Comp makes number theology the most fundamental science unifying all the others. Indeed. Of course today's theology has not yet come back to the academy, and institutionalized theologies are politicized and used to control people. We are still in an era where we tolerated authoritative arguments in religion (and other human sciences), where actually it is the place where such arguments are the most wrong possible. The enlightenment period was half-enlightenment. All sciences go through, except the most fundamental one: theology. Theology has been scientific only with the Greeks, Chinese and Indian. In Occident it is still a taboo. I like to say: bad faith fears reason, bad reason fears faith. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp). That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com 4:53 AM (2 hours ago) to everything-list On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse. How? Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi- Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of the fine structure constant across the visible universe. The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot be the case if our (generalized) brain is computable. Richard: That does not make sense. If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations (like the one done by the UD). Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any special knowledge. It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno, I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu. (At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram) And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an illusion. However, I am also a physicist and my string cosmology goes against my religion. As a physicist I am an Aristotelian, but not one who discounts the supernatural. So I am pleased to finally understand why I cannot understand you. And I must say that I appreciate your polite and truthful responses esp compared to Quentins and a chicken is a dog sham response. Richard PS: I originally said that the CY manifolds were numerable meaning that they can be numbered. Is that incorrect usage? On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 03:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: So matter is just maya-illusion. Yes. That's the result. UDA shows that if we can survive with a digital brain, by virtue of its infomation handling power (and not some magic), then matter is only appearance in the mind of some (relative) numbers. That's the key point. That is really religion- right? Hmm... The tone used here makes me suspecting that you are using religion in some pejorative sense. But yes it is theology. I insist on this almost at the start: comp is the belief in a form of technological reincarnation, and as such, cannot be justified rationally. We have to bet.. But we can do that bet from evidences (nature exploits replacement all the times, the known laws are all Turing emulable, etc.). It means also that if a scientist says science as shown that we are machine, that scientist is a pseudo-scientist, or a pseudo-priest, or some con who want steal your money. Comp is yes doctor, and it entails the right to say No, doctor. Comp makes number theology the most fundamental science unifying all the others. Indeed. Of course today's theology has not yet come back to the academy, and institutionalized theologies are politicized and used to control people. We are still in an era where we tolerated authoritative arguments in religion (and other human sciences), where actually it is the place where such arguments are the most wrong possible. The enlightenment period was half-enlightenment. All sciences go through, except the most fundamental one: theology. Theology has been scientific only with the Greeks, Chinese and Indian. In Occident it is still a taboo. I like to say: bad faith fears reason, bad reason fears faith. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp). That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno Marchal viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail googlegroups.com 4:53 AM (2 hours ago) to everything-list On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse. How? Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of the fine structure constant across the visible universe. The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. It seems also that you believe in a
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
2013/10/29 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Bruno, I do not use religion in a pejorative sense. Actually I am a Hindu. (At least I was until I got kicked out of the Muktananda Ashram) And so I am religiously in agreement with physical reality being an illusion. However, I am also a physicist and my string cosmology goes against my religion. As a physicist I am an Aristotelian, but not one who discounts the supernatural. So I am pleased to finally understand why I cannot understand you. And I must say that I appreciate your polite and truthful responses esp compared to Quentins and a chicken is a dog sham response. Because the way you said it was pejorative... secondly I do not condone the use of the term religion for that. Religion is composed of dogma... this is not. Quentin Richard PS: I originally said that the CY manifolds were numerable meaning that they can be numbered. Is that incorrect usage? On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 03:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: So matter is just maya-illusion. Yes. That's the result. UDA shows that if we can survive with a digital brain, by virtue of its infomation handling power (and not some magic), then matter is only appearance in the mind of some (relative) numbers. That's the key point. That is really religion- right? Hmm... The tone used here makes me suspecting that you are using religion in some pejorative sense. But yes it is theology. I insist on this almost at the start: comp is the belief in a form of technological reincarnation, and as such, cannot be justified rationally. We have to bet.. But we can do that bet from evidences (nature exploits replacement all the times, the known laws are all Turing emulable, etc.). It means also that if a scientist says science as shown that we are machine, that scientist is a pseudo-scientist, or a pseudo-priest, or some con who want steal your money. Comp is yes doctor, and it entails the right to say No, doctor. Comp makes number theology the most fundamental science unifying all the others. Indeed. Of course today's theology has not yet come back to the academy, and institutionalized theologies are politicized and used to control people. We are still in an era where we tolerated authoritative arguments in religion (and other human sciences), where actually it is the place where such arguments are the most wrong possible. The enlightenment period was half-enlightenment. All sciences go through, except the most fundamental one: theology. Theology has been scientific only with the Greeks, Chinese and Indian. In Occident it is still a taboo. I like to say: bad faith fears reason, bad reason fears faith. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics. Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short). If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong. Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of comp? No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp). That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical realities. If it does not do that, what good is it? Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc. Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno Marchal viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail googlegroups.com 4:53 AM (2 hours ago) to everything-list On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse. How? Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of the
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-
Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic
variation of the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that
cannot be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through
the state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is
an infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy
domain is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-
computations (like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper.
You need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not
presuppose any special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep
in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the
provable (by universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but
arithmetical truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1,
2, 3, ... (this needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but
we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the
machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by
the true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states),
which are provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent
(such accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's
basically, for all p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable
arithmetical formula) beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The
operator for that, let us write it [], provides a quantum logic, by
the application of []p. This gives a quantization of arithmetic
due to the fact, introspectively deducible by all universal machines,
that we cannot really know who we are and which computations and
universal numbers sustain us. Below our substitution level, things
*have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non computable,
indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel
said only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The
question was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and
Heisenberg uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent indeed, but assuming comp
and understanding the FPI, you can intuit why the fuzziness has to
emerge from inside the digital/arithmetic, below or at our
substitution level, and the math of self-reference gives a quick way
to get the propositional logic of that universal physics (deducible
by all correct computationalist UMs).
And there is the Solovay gifts, which are theorems which show that
incompleteness split those logics,. That is useful for distinguishing
the true part of that physics from the part that the machine can
(still introspectively) deduces. Some intensional nuances, like the
[] above, inherit the split, some like the Bp p does not, and
facts of that type can help to delineate the quanta from the qualia,
but also the terrestrial (temporal) from the divine (atemporal).
Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal
system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Comp suggests to extend Everett on the universal quantum wave on
arithmetic and the universal machines dreams. The wavy aspect being
explained by the self-embedding in arithmetic. Comp entails a sort of
self-diffraction.
No problem trying to get the fundamental physics from observation, and
indeed that will help for the comparison. The approach here keep the
1/p 3/p distinctions all along, and in that sense proposes a new
formulation, and ways to consider, the mind-body problem (in which I
am interested and is the main motivation for interviewing the antic,
the contemporaries and the universal
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp? That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive
it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot
be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever will
happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the state S
(or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an infinite and
non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain is not
computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations (like the
one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in
mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by
universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel said
only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The question
was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and Heisenberg
uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent indeed, but assuming comp and
understanding the FPI, you can intuit why the fuzziness has to emerge from
inside the digital/arithmetic, below or at our substitution level, and the
math of
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp?
No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter.
There is no primary matter (assuming comp).
That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive
it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot
be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the
state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an
infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain
is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations
(like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in
mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by
universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel said
only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The question
was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and Heisenberg
uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you
can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp?
No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in
matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp).
That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that
cannot be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the
state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an
infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain
is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations
(like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep
in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable
(by universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel
said only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The
question was would there be a relationship between
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Try changing directions now. Here's a hint: Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield earth, water, fire, and sky people from the planet with no green left without the singular solution. I can't help thinking is pinking the blank slate magazines of red books of communal baths with gladiators and do you hear my heart beating? Life goes on and off the beaten path of the travelling salesman isomorphically to the problems of the physically intimate universal couples. I send my thoughts to far off destinations finally we can rest away from maddening crowds so you can discover truth from filthy lies. Everybody's changing at the speed of causality and the threads cannot be undone except by circling them faster and knotting not the needy. Everybody waits for you now when he reached the foot of the hillside hospital we wondered why he was that he was truly a mystery of life. Were you wanting me like I wanted your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heavenly union of blessed souls. All the world's a stage manager but away in a manger was the play the invention of the humanity even modulo any belief in angels or demons. When you say that we were wrong life goes on and off to the racetrack like the horses we watched galloping like there was no yesterday. Out of nothing we embrace the ashes of eternity until the phoenix rises from the gray wolf's companionship is the greatest union of all. This is why we can't have nice to meet you and others from the planet of the tubes which cannot give you eternal life, only subtle messages. There's a lot that we can give little when you give of your possessive particles of atomic matter so tomorrow we give away all the strings. Three two one singular matrix in which you would watch with serenity to accept the things one cannot change the future's past reproducing. Let them see you smile and a tears for fears of the unknown soldier so rise and repeat yourself for the sake of brevity brave one two three. The things you have fashioned in necessity and delighted to see you old friend from before the days of yore when clothes fit like gloves. Sand and foam parties surprising you at the end of time and spacemen wondering if it started with a low light or maybe just a beached whale. I would that my life were a tear and a smile like you mean it you killer rabbit holes through which you will never follow until the sadness. You would accept the seasons of your heart will go on through the night of the living social security mechanism for the winter of our lives. They too are gatherers of fruit and Frankenfoods blathering about the genetic manipulation of mice and men until the singularity of genes. Who shall command the skylark not to sing of his glory the Hypnotoad and the green frogs resume questioning the princesses tonight they say. See that no one has gone his way with empty hands clapping the sound of which is louder than one hand given in friendship shaking alone. You give little when you give of your magi are the weakest class at the beginning of the game but quickly ascend the heights to circularity. Your hearts know in silence of the lamb chop suey from the Chinese room within the bolting brains of the lighting bugs compared to humans. Bows from which your children are living in the shell games played by con artists wondering what the point of reproduction and sentience is. My heart will go on to the next existence without my central nervously awaiting the arrival of the first man in the matrix of singularities. Whenever you will go away from here and come back when you're ready steady rock and troll beneath the bridge of forever. Enterprise? Yes. I still haven't found what I'm looking through the spyglass entertainment systems of the down by the bayou until we find Finn, again. Finn again's wakefulness yields the sleepy tiger waiting for its meal on the infinite plain of measurably zero gazelles and striped zebras. Digitized you inside a turtle in a half-shell of the sixth sense of inverted symmetry between observer and observed quantum states of mind. Don't hate the player, hate the game theory yielding conspiracies in the beautiful mind of a gladiator asking if you are entertained. What's it really for loops to see plus the plus until the template of perfect recursion arrives from the land of the syntactic sugar plums. Let it come all cozy into viewfinder's keeper of the floating mountains kept afloat by unobtainium. Jake? Eywa has heard you. Slow down your passion fire in the belly buttons pushing the red ones until we all say that was easy peasy. Time again? Gulp. Maybe? Yes! Some other time again? Well well well! It's always about the non-linearity of dreaming time, like the butterfly effect. Unicorns! Chaos. Send me a funny poet some other time we should sent one the first time but forgive us for the small steps and the fear of the unknown. Con? Live hallucination within a dream within a dream of the
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. A computation is a concept in arithmetic. There exist infinitely many computations for reason similar as the fact that there exist infinitely many prime number. Then the UDA reasoning (notably step 8, + weak Occam) explains that to predict any physical events correctly, once we assume we are turing emulable, we have to sum on the infinitely many compuations going through our states. So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. So any consideration on the size of the physical universe is irrelevant. In comp, the size of the universe is an open problem. Bruno For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – what would
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno: So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. Richard : No logic necessary? But as you know, I think an actual machine is needed to do the computations. Here actual includes the physical space as well as the mental/supernatural space, but not the infinite space of arithmetic solutions. On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. A computation is a concept in arithmetic. There exist infinitely many computations for reason similar as the fact that there exist infinitely many prime number. Then the UDA reasoning (notably step 8, + weak Occam) explains that to predict any physical events correctly, once we assume we are turing emulable, we have to sum on the infinitely many compuations going through our states. So we explain the *appearance* of a physical reality without assuming more than numbers and the + and * laws. So any consideration on the size of the physical universe is irrelevant. In comp, the size of the universe is an open problem. Bruno For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside*** * fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...* *** ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...* *** On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive -* *** granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi* *** gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy* *** arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view).** ** Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? ** ** Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – what would they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithms perhaps -- re-write and “fix” transient paradoxes, loose ends etc. in order to produce, at least on the observer’s macro scale, the smooth perception of rock solid causality. And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at least) then causality can be said to be operative…. Even if it needs to get fixed up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observed reality, as long as at the functional level its Laws stand then it would seem to all still work out. This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? ** ** Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these – what would they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithms perhaps -- re-write and “fix” transient paradoxes, loose ends etc. in order to produce, at least on the observer’s macro scale, the smooth perception of rock solid causality. And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at least) then causality can be said
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Quentin, Perhaps that assumption of unlimited bits for computation is unwarranted in a finite universe. In my paper I circumvent that limitation by assuming that the metaverse is the computational source of matter. http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Computationalism doesn't assume the universe (or any universe) at the start, just only arithmetical realism, it is not limited in any fashion, universe/matter is an emergent phenomena not a primary ontological substance. 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside** ** fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:*** * The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? ** ** Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Comp does not assume universe at the start... also the fact if the universe is finite or not is not settle. But anyway fact of physical laws have to be recovered from comp alone. Quentin 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Quentin, Perhaps that assumption of unlimited bits for computation is unwarranted in a finite universe. In my paper I circumvent that limitation by assuming that the metaverse is the computational source of matter. http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Computationalism doesn't assume the universe (or any universe) at the start, just only arithmetical realism, it is not limited in any fashion, universe/matter is an emergent phenomena not a primary ontological substance. 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside* *** fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:** ** The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
The recent observation of a galaxy 30 billion light years away, just 700 million years after the Big Bang, suggests that the universe is finite. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Comp does not assume universe at the start... also the fact if the universe is finite or not is not settle. But anyway fact of physical laws have to be recovered from comp alone. Quentin 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Quentin, Perhaps that assumption of unlimited bits for computation is unwarranted in a finite universe. In my paper I circumvent that limitation by assuming that the metaverse is the computational source of matter. http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Computationalism doesn't assume the universe (or any universe) at the start, just only arithmetical realism, it is not limited in any fashion, universe/matter is an emergent phenomena not a primary ontological substance. 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:* *** The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ** ** ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
I think you can't see a galaxy who would be 30 billions light years away, while the hubble spĥere radius is only 15 billions light year, centered on earth... Also what would settle the finitude of the universe because a full fledged galaxy was found not long after the bigbang ? As of now, I've never read anything that settle if the universe is finite or not... we're not talking about the hubble volume, but the universe here... Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that computationalism does not assume universe at the start and as such you can't use such assumption. Quentin 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com The recent observation of a galaxy 30 billion light years away, just 700 million years after the Big Bang, suggests that the universe is finite. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Comp does not assume universe at the start... also the fact if the universe is finite or not is not settle. But anyway fact of physical laws have to be recovered from comp alone. Quentin 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com Quentin, Perhaps that assumption of unlimited bits for computation is unwarranted in a finite universe. In my paper I circumvent that limitation by assuming that the metaverse is the computational source of matter. http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Computationalism doesn't assume the universe (or any universe) at the start, just only arithmetical realism, it is not limited in any fashion, universe/matter is an emergent phenomena not a primary ontological substance. 2013/10/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** ** On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the product of some program. 2) implies 1) but 1) implies the negation of 2)(this can be explained with the thought experiment like in the UDA). In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self- contradictory. Bruno You lost me here… why does 1) negate 2)? Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity of computations below the substitution level (there is an infinity of computations going through your current state). 2 implies matter is the result of one specific computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 = 2 = ~2. OK? No more question? I have to go, might add comments later. Bruno Quentin Is it because 1) requires some external observable that is not a part of itself As seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2) Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiring an external observable in order to even know it exists. Unless something could be perfectly self-referential, which I sense you doubt. perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J Chris 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. -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
The galaxy is probably 30 bn light years away NOW (leaving aside exactly what now means cosmologically) but we see its image from when it was 13 bn light years away. In the intervening 13bn years it has moved another 17bn light years (universal expansion not being limited to c). Or so I'm reliably informed... On 25 October 2013 06:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ** ** ** Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the product of some program. ** ** 2) implies 1) ** ** but ** ** 1) implies the negation of 2)(this can be explained with the thought experiment like in the UDA). ** ** In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory. ** ** Bruno ** ** You lost me here… why does 1) negate 2)? Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity of computations below the substitution level (there is an infinity of computations going through your current state). 2 implies matter is the result of one specific computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 = 2 = ~2. OK? No more question? I have to go, might add comments later. Bruno Quentin Is it because 1) requires some external observable that is not a part of itself As seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2) Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiring an external observable in order to even know it exists. Unless something could be perfectly self-referential, which I sense you doubt. ** ** perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J Chris ** ** 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. -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. 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. -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
In the 13 B year period that the light took to get here the universe itself has expanded stretching out spacetime spreading things out like dots on the surface of an inflating balloon. Hence the 30 B figure - that factors in the red shift computed values to arrive at that current distance. Light leaving those galaxies right now, if they still exist that is, would take 30 B years to finally get to earth which will have been long since gone by then. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... The galaxy is probably 30 bn light years away NOW (leaving aside exactly what now means cosmologically) but we see its image from when it was 13 bn light years away. In the intervening 13bn years it has moved another 17bn light years (universal expansion not being limited to c). Or so I'm reliably informed... On 25 October 2013 06:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the product of some program. 2) implies 1) but 1) implies the negation of 2)(this can be explained with the thought experiment like in the UDA). In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory. Bruno You lost me here. why does 1) negate 2)? Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity of computations below the substitution level (there is an infinity of computations going through your current state). 2 implies matter is the result of one specific computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 = 2 = ~2. OK? No more question? I have to go, might add comments later. Bruno Quentin Is it because 1) requires some external observable that is not a part of itself As seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2) Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiring an external observable in order to even know it exists. Unless something could be perfectly self-referential, which I sense you doubt. perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J Chris 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. -- 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. -- 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
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno, Are you saying that 1) negates digital physics? If so can you explain how for dummies? Richard On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...* *** ** ** ** ** On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive -* *** granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? ** ** It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! ** ** ** ** On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: ** ** The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi* *** gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy* *** arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. ** ** ** ** Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. ** ** Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). ** ** The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. ** ** The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). ** ** I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view).** ** ** ** Bruno ** ** If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If reality is information and information can be described with equations that are scale invariant (such as for example vector graphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then a computational model can still describe the entire universal relationship and identity sets even when there is seemingly no end (that we have found) to how small a point of spacetime can be. OK. But computationalism (I am a machine) entails the existence of at least one observable which relies on real numbers and is not completely turing emulable. It might be the quantum frequency operator (describe well by Graham and Preskill's course). So long as this does not much matter to the computational theory itself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurement of the lack of any fine structure in spacetime. Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the product of some program. 2) implies 1) but 1) implies the negation of 2)(this can be explained with the thought experiment like in the UDA). In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory
RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality - to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) - may be a little loosey goosey, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these - what would they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithms perhaps -- re-write and fix transient paradoxes, loose ends etc. in order to produce, at least on the observer's macro scale, the smooth perception of rock solid causality. And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at least) then causality can be said to be operative.. Even if it needs to get fixed up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observed reality, as long as at the functional level its Laws stand then it would seem to all still work out. This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe -wormholes, backwards vectors of time and the foaming sea of virtual particle pairs popping in and out of our universe - at the femtoscale it all seems very chaotic and non-casual (at least in the simple linear manner we experience causality and the flow of time) so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If reality is information
RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
I am still amazed that they were able to infer that spacetime cannot be granular above a value that is enormously smaller than the Planck Scale, which itself is far beyond the energy levels by any atom smasher we can build. This by itself is an impressive bit of leverage to make assertions about reality on that scale. And apparently it has important consequences for several of the contending theories out there. such quantum loop gravity. I am intrigued by the suggestion that there really is not that much fundamental reality in this matrix of spacetime in which we perceive ourselves and all things we can see to be immersed in. Quoting Russel's earlier post on this as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. - an interesting perspective, if I am understanding you correctly that what is commonly perceived as being the fundamental fabric of reality is in reality a model construct of I am guessing our perception. an artifact of the process of perception of our minds. Or have I wandered far from what you actually intended.. J Spacetime, certainly is something we take for granted and it occupies a most central role in every single one of our senses as well. I find it elusively hard to even imagine reality sans spacetime, but then again just because it seems so fundamental and real in our commonplace experience of being doesn't necessarily mean that it therefore must be. It does seem however necessary in order for us to make any sense of our world. I cannot conceive of a world without spacetime and causality (the one way movement of the flow of time) - which only means that that is the limit of my senses. If I try to imagine a universe that is not shall we say projected down onto a screen of spacetime. my imagining quickly begins to trend to the psychedelic - which perhaps is what it would be as it overwhelmed our limited senses. Do you see spacetime as being necessary for all models or just for our particular anthropomorphic universe in the multiverse? I am guessing you would say the latter. What is the underlying reality which then models spacetime? It seems there must be some underlying something there because space time has such accurate and predictive qualities - the thrown stone will in fact follow the trajectory and all observers in the vicinity will experience a cohesive experience of reality in regards to the trajectory and impact of the stone. Spacetime ties our star system into our galaxy, local group, cluster, and the larger mega structures of our universe as we know it and it provides a fabric for reality to exist in that is highly predictable and predictive. If spacetime itself is a part of a model, the role it plays seems absolutely essential to a reality that makes any sense - it relates things to each other and places them in relation to other things in a manner that is the same essentially for all observers of sober mind - at least at a basic level of agreement. Spacetime keeps the moon where it is and everything in perspective to everything else and it would all basically tally up and agree, if every observer measured what was being measured from their perspective and transposed to other perspectives. What I am asking is could there be a deeper more generalized analog for this fabric that manifests in our anthropomorphic universe for us as spacetime; perhaps some abstract mathematical ordering principle that establishes and tracks the multitude of relationships between things along all possible causal branches? From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:43 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: That interpretation of the signal picked up by that dectector in Hannover has also subsequently been disputed by ESA measurements of gamma ray polarization from distant gamma ray bursts. If as these measurements seem to suggest the universe is not pixelated then anything that relies on the universe being pixelated must also get a close re-examination to see if they withstand these apparent highly accurate measurements of distant gamma ray burst polarization -- or rather the apparent lack of any harmonization of the polarization induced by a granular nature of spacetime, with such granularization apparently excluded down to much smaller scales than previously reached. So I am left
RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Brent ~ loved that quote All models are wrong, but some models are useful. --- George E. P. Box From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 10/21/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. They are all models, including arithmetic and computationalism. Brent All models are wrong, but some models are useful. --- George E. P. Box -- 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. -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 21 Oct 2013, at 22:56, LizR wrote: ...these are a few of my favourite things! In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of [high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using the mathematics of string theory. And... every state of matter matches up with a gravitational scenario that can be described using (...) string theory. Superconductors can be understood as stars made of charged particles and (...) Higgs bosons. Classical liquids can be modelled using the mathematics of black holes that do not have spin and have no electric charge. That struck me as rather mind-boggling. How can a theory of 10 (?) dimensional space-time and vibrating strings relate stars to superconductors, etc? (And are there other parallelisms waiting to be discovered - other physical phenomena that are mathematically identical when they go through the looking glass, as it were?) This seems to me to be saying something profound about reality. I just wish I knew what it was. String theory is amazing, no doubt. Very difficult too. It describes a powerful high level/low level quantum computer, with many universal layers. Quantum field has already aspect like that. String theory has also surprising relation with number theory, and with the number 24! I wish I have more time to dig on that wonderful subject. There are amazing relation between physics and knots (and braids) and set theories. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To 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. 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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/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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If reality is information and information can be described with equations that are scale invariant (such as for example vector graphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then a computational model can still describe the entire universal relationship and identity sets even when there is seemingly no end (that we have found) to how small a point of spacetime can be. So long as this does not much matter to the computational theory itself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurement of the lack of any fine structure in spacetime. Chris -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ...these are a few of my favourite things! In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of [high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using the mathematics of string theory. And... every state of matter matches up with a gravitational scenario that can be described using (...) string theory. Superconductors can be understood as stars made of charged particles and (...) Higgs bosons. Classical liquids can be modelled using the mathematics of black holes that do not have spin and have no electric charge. That struck me as rather mind-boggling. How can a theory of 10 (?) dimensional space-time and vibrating strings relate stars to superconductors, etc? (And are there other parallelisms waiting to be discovered - other physical phenomena that are mathematically identical when they go through the looking glass, as it were?) This seems to me to be saying something profound about reality. I just wish I knew what it was. -- 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. -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Given the newsworthiness of such a discovery, and the fact that I've never heard of the Hannover signal until now, indicates perhaps not. That's not proof, of course :). On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:12:52PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ...these are a few of my favourite things! In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of [high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using the mathematics of string theory. And... every state of matter matches up with a gravitational scenario that can be described using (...) string theory. Superconductors can be understood as stars made of charged particles and (...) Higgs bosons. Classical liquids can be modelled using the mathematics of black holes that do not have spin and have no electric charge. That struck me as rather mind-boggling. How can a theory of 10 (?) dimensional space-time and vibrating strings relate stars to superconductors, etc? (And are there other parallelisms waiting to be discovered - other physical phenomena that are mathematically identical when they go through the looking glass, as it were?) This seems to me to be saying something profound about reality. I just wish I knew what it was. -- 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. -- 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. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
All of that is based on the Maldacena Conjecture and the viscosity of the quark-gluon pasma as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: ...these are a few of my favourite things! In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of [high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using the mathematics of string theory. And... every state of matter matches up with a gravitational scenario that can be described using (...) string theory. Superconductors can be understood as stars made of charged particles and (...) Higgs bosons. Classical liquids can be modelled using the mathematics of black holes that do not have spin and have no electric charge. That struck me as rather mind-boggling. How can a theory of 10 (?) dimensional space-time and vibrating strings relate stars to superconductors, etc? (And are there other parallelisms waiting to be discovered - other physical phenomena that are mathematically identical when they go through the looking glass, as it were?) This seems to me to be saying something profound about reality. I just wish I knew what it was. -- 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. -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) But there's nothing about information that requires it be represented in binary. That's just the most efficient way found for electronic computers to work. Early on there were digital computers that worked in base three. One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. I'm not aware of that experiment (do you have a citation?). But a comparison of gamma ray burst delays from distant events has set very low bounds, 1/525 Planck lengths, to any discrete structure of spacetime. arXiv:1109.5191v2 Brent Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 22 October 2013 14:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: “Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it’s suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything.” Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford ** ** On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) But there's nothing about information that requires it be represented in binary. That's just the most efficient way found for electronic computers to work. Early on there were digital computers that worked in base three. True, although nature does seem to prefer things to be simple, so there may be an anthropic argument for us living in one of the simplest universes we can exist in. We have some binary stuff in nature like spin up/down and matter/antimatter, but there are triplets as well (quark flavours I think?) and three fundamental forces (that may unite into one at high energies...) Rather than binary, maybe the word to use is digital ? Of course space and time (or the multiverse) may not be discrete... -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: That interpretation of the signal picked up by that dectector in Hannover has also subsequently been disputed by ESA measurements of gamma ray polarization from distant gamma ray bursts. If as these measurements seem to suggest the universe is not pixelated then anything that relies on the universe being pixelated must also get a close re-examination to see if they withstand these apparent highly accurate measurements of distant gamma ray burst polarization -- or rather the apparent lack of any harmonization of the polarization induced by a granular nature of spacetime, with such granularization apparently excluded down to much smaller scales than previously reached. So I am left still asking myself the question is the universe granular or not -- the ESA experiment seems to suggest it is not down to the scale of 10^-48 meters (by comparison the size of a single proton is around 1.6 X 10^ -15 meters, which is inconceivably huger than the previous number) Quoting from their press release: By examining the polarisation of gamma-ray bursts as they reach Earth, we should be able to detect this graininess, as the polarisation of the photons that arrive here is affected by the spacetime that they travel through. The grains should twist them, changing the direction in which they oscillate so that they arrive with the same polarization. Also, higher energy gamma rays should be twisted more than lower ones. However, the satellite detected no such twisting - there were no differences in the polarization between different energies found to the accuracy limits of the data, which are 10,000 times better than any previous readings. That means that any quantum grains that exist would have to measure 10^-48 meters or smaller. In the European Space Agency press release, Philippe Laurent said the find ruled out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/06/137634397/physicists-almost-c ertain-the-universe-is-not-a-hologram -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... Given the newsworthiness of such a discovery, and the fact that I've never heard of the Hannover signal until now, indicates perhaps not. That's not proof, of course :). On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:12:52PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... ...these are a few of my favourite things! In the 12/10/13 issue of New Scientist, in an article entitled All or nothing? I read that certain aspects of the behaviour of [high temperature superconductors] are much easier to capture using the mathematics of string theory. And... every state of matter matches up with a gravitational scenario that can be described using
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: That interpretation of the signal picked up by that dectector in Hannover has also subsequently been disputed by ESA measurements of gamma ray polarization from distant gamma ray bursts. If as these measurements seem to suggest the universe is not pixelated then anything that relies on the universe being pixelated must also get a close re-examination to see if they withstand these apparent highly accurate measurements of distant gamma ray burst polarization -- or rather the apparent lack of any harmonization of the polarization induced by a granular nature of spacetime, with such granularization apparently excluded down to much smaller scales than previously reached. So I am left still asking myself the question is the universe granular or not -- the ESA experiment seems to suggest it is not down to the scale of 10^-48 meters (by comparison the size of a single proton is around 1.6 X 10^ -15 meters, which is inconceivably huger than the previous number) Quoting from their press release: By examining the polarisation of gamma-ray bursts as they reach Earth, we should be able to detect this graininess, as the polarisation of the photons that arrive here is affected by the spacetime that they travel through. The grains should twist them, changing the direction in which they oscillate so that they arrive with the same polarization. Also, higher energy gamma rays should be twisted more than lower ones. However, the satellite detected no such twisting - there were no differences in the polarization between different energies found to the accuracy limits of the data, which are 10,000 times better than any previous readings. That means that any quantum grains that exist would have to measure 10^-48 meters or smaller. In the European Space Agency press release, Philippe Laurent said the find ruled out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/06/137634397/physicists-almost-c ertain-the-universe-is-not-a-hologramhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/06/137634397/physicists-almost-certain-the-universe-is-not-a-hologram -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... Given the newsworthiness of such a discovery, and the fact that I've never heard of the Hannover signal until now, indicates perhaps not. That's not proof, of course :). On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:12:52PM -0700, Chris de Morsella wrote: Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 1:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: String theory and superconductors
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 10/21/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. They are all models, including arithmetic and computationalism. Brent All models are wrong, but some models are useful. --- George E. P. Box -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_600 GEO600 is a Michelson interferometer. It consists of two 600 meter long arms, which the laser beam passes twice, so that the effective optical arm length is 1200 m. The major optical components are located in an ultra-high vacuum system. The pressure is in the range of 10-8 mbar. Claimed link between GEO 600 detector noise and holographic properties of spacetime[edit] On January 15, 2009, it was reported in New Scientist that some yet unidentified noise that was present in the GEO 600 detector measurements might be because the instrument is sensitive to extremely small quantum fluctuations of space-time affecting the positions of parts of the detector.[12] This claim was made by Craig Hogan, a scientist from Fermilab, on the basis of his own theory of how such fluctuations should occur motivated by the holographic principle.[13] The New Scientist story states that Hogan sent his prediction of holographic noise to the GEO 600 collaboration in June 2008, and subsequently received a plot of the excess noise which looked exactly the same as my prediction. However, Hogan knew before that time that the experiment was finding excess noise. Hogan's article published in Physical Review D in May 2008 states: The approximate agreement of predicted holographic noise with otherwise unexplained noise in GEO 600 motivates further study.[14] Hogan cites a 2007 talk from the GEO 600 collaboration which already mentions mid-band 'mystery' noise, and where the noise spectra are plotted.[15] A similar remark was made (In the region between 100 Hz and 500 Hz a discrepancy between the uncorrelated sum of all noise projections and the actual observed sensitivity is found.) in a GEO 600 paper submitted in October 2007 and published in May 2008.[16] It is also a very common occurrence for gravitational wave detectors to find excess noise that is subsequently eliminated. According to Karsten Danzmann, the GEO 600 principal investigator, The daily business of improving the sensitivity of these experiments always throws up some excess noise (...). We work to identify its cause, get rid of it and tackle the next source of excess noise.[12] Additionally, some new estimates of the level of holographic noise in interferometry show that it must be much smaller in magnitude than was claimed by Hogan.[17] From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 6:18 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 10/21/2013 5:12 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Quantum physics is almost phrased in terms of information processing it's suggestive that you will find information processing at the root of everything. Vlatko Vedral, University of Oxford On so many levels the universe appears to operate at a binary level (up, down, +/-, spin and so many other properties) But there's nothing about information that requires it be represented in binary. That's just the most efficient way found for electronic computers to work. Early on there were digital computers that worked in base three. One of the fundamental aspects of reality that I have been curious about -- since hearing about the signal picked up (in 2008) by the GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in Hannover, Germany that seemed to suggest that space-time is pixelated -- is whether reality is pixelated. Is there a smallest pixel of space time (or does space time have infinite room at the bottom scale) If reality is pixelated at this fundamental level then it seems more likely to be computable; however if the Hannover signal was misinterpreted and even the smallest imaginable chunk of space time can forever be sub-divided into smaller and smaller space-time locus' or regions then computability becomes harder to imagine. I'm not aware of that experiment (do you have a citation?). But a comparison of gamma ray burst delays from distant events has set very low bounds, 1/525 Planck lengths, to any discrete structure of spacetime. arXiv:1109.5191v2 Brent Given the volume of posts on this list I am sure this has been talked about before, after all its not new news. I am wondering if the Hannover signals (and the interpretation of those signals) have been reconfirmed or not. Cheers, Chris -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
