An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
Brent, et al, I officially challenge anyone to poke any holes in my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events or prove it wrong. If no one takes me up on the challenge I'll have to assume everyone accepts it by default. I claim the theory 1. Resolves all quantum paradox 2. Provides a conceptual unification of QT and GR 3. Explains the necessary source of quantum randomness This theory is at least as controversial and potentially groundbreaking as my P-time Theory so fire away! Here's a summary of the theory: Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are necessarily interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate fragmentary partial space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his as yet UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. Thus there is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
Eugen, That's not that bad ... Now I can make some sense of what you see. Like Craig reminds me the talk of the universal soul, there is a ring of intelligible matter and/or sensible matter in your theory below. Unfortunately your explanation of computation was non sensical. You have a huge amount of study to do for learning how to design and develop theories. And then, if I am correct, follow the explanation and you will understand that the universal machine has already discovered it. (Mainly the intelligible hypostases, Bp Dt). On this list most people agree already on the Everett resolution of the QM paradox, and talk on more subtle paradoxes when assuming mechanism or digital mechanism. We have no problem with block time, or No time, as the indexical solution satisfy us (except Stephen). Bruno On 03 Mar 2014, at 17:18, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, et al, I officially challenge anyone to poke any holes in my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events or prove it wrong. If no one takes me up on the challenge I'll have to assume everyone accepts it by default. I claim the theory 1. Resolves all quantum paradox 2. Provides a conceptual unification of QT and GR 3. Explains the necessary source of quantum randomness This theory is at least as controversial and potentially groundbreaking as my P-time Theory so fire away! Here's a summary of the theory: Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are necessarily interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate fragmentary partial space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
I still haven't understood the opening paragraph. Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. This is the same problem I had last time, I asked the same questions but I don't recall you answering them then. I'm guessing you won't manage to now, either. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. This assumes the existence of particles, or something that has these properties. What is that? It's easy to throw out a challenge when you refuse to address any questions properly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
On 3/3/2014 10:57 AM, LizR wrote: What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. You should ask these questions of Bruno. ;-) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
Liz, The 'results' and the 'everything' are the actual information state of the universe. There is NO separate storage of anything other than the current information state of the universe. The current information state of the universe is continually being computed by the computations. No, it does NOT assume the existence of particles. In this theory particle properties are prior to the existence of elementary particles. They are the actual components which in valid groups MAKE UP particles. And particle properties themselves, like everything else, are just information sets. When valid sets of particle properties associate they create information states interpreted as particles. This is easy to see because individual particles interact and transform into other particles, but the particle properties themselves are CONSERVED. Particles are NOT conserved, but particle properties ARE conserved. Therefore it tis the particle properties, not the particles, that are the elemental components of reality. Have I answered your questions? Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:57:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I still haven't understood the opening paragraph. Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. This is the same problem I had last time, I asked the same questions but I don't recall you answering them then. I'm guessing you won't manage to now, either. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in computational space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. This assumes the existence of particles, or something that has these properties. What is that? It's easy to throw out a challenge when you refuse to address any questions properly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
On 4 March 2014 08:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/3/2014 10:57 AM, LizR wrote: What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. You should ask these questions of Bruno. ;-) I have, of course (as have others on this list and FOAR). I believe the answer involves arithmetic realism and the Church-Turing thesis, and something to do with how numbers can be computations relative to other numbers - I don't pretend to understand it completely, but at least Bruno is trying, patiently and politely, to educate me to the point where I can grasp what he's saying. And then, hopefully, I'll be able to decide for myself whether I think he's right or not. -- 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: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..
On 03 Mar 2014, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote: On 3/3/2014 10:57 AM, LizR wrote: What is this everything which is computational ? Specifically, what does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for the rest of the theory. You should ask these questions of Bruno. ;-) Unfortunately, Liz raised questions that I asked, and eventually got an answer by Edgar, but which were nonsensical proses. Like his answer to Liz right now. In his friendly post, I just saw that his theory, like the one by Craig, seems to be a reification of an 1p view. (a common thing with Heracliteans). But Craig's reification bears on the 1p, and Edgar 's seem to bear on the 1p-plural. Then, those reifications are accompanied by some ignorance of the theories involved, and a difficulty to assess the facts. BTW, computations does not *need* energy. Only erasing information needs energy, *when implemented physically*, and we can build Turing universal system which never erase information, so we can build system computing anything, and never using more energy than the one needed to build the system and trigger its activity. But this will not help Edgar. Then computation per se does not need energy, as a computation is not a physical notion at the start. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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.
