Re: Interesting Feynman Quote
On 27 Feb 2012, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it is space-time observations which emerges from arithmetical self- observation. Why would they though? I can have a dream in which I observe myself participating in a space-time world, but it is not consistent with physics. Then, if you are lucid enough, you can deduce that eiher comp is false, or you are in a simulation, and this you can test or awake from. Things appear and disappear without formally appearing or disappearing. You can crawl under a bed and find the gardens at Versailles. The bed may or may not be gone at this point but it is clear from the sense of the dream that it doesn't matter. Nothing is reliable or testable in dreams. What makes the arithmetic computations of my dream emerge as such a multivalent fugue of inconsistencies, but makes all real world physics emerge in precisely the opposite way - as a reliable and unified context? Study UDA, and you should grasp that it needs to be like that. Why do all physical events have to formally occur but dream events has no comparable formality? Because they occur at a higher level, and this can be tested if you are lucid enough. If you are not, then you can't, but this is true for any theory. So, if you keep faith in comp, you can measure your degree of simulation, and if the test gives the comp-physics, then you have evidence that you are at the level zero. The comp level zero is quantum like, and the physical test gives evidence that this discussion occurs at that level. I don't expect you to grasp this if you have not ruminate some time on the thought experiments, though. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Interesting Feynman Quote
On Feb 26, 3:50 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it is space-time observations which emerges from arithmetical self- observation. Why would they though? I can have a dream in which I observe myself participating in a space-time world, but it is not consistent with physics. Things appear and disappear without formally appearing or disappearing. You can crawl under a bed and find the gardens at Versailles. The bed may or may not be gone at this point but it is clear from the sense of the dream that it doesn't matter. Nothing is reliable or testable in dreams. What makes the arithmetic computations of my dream emerge as such a multivalent fugue of inconsistencies, but makes all real world physics emerge in precisely the opposite way - as a reliable and unified context? Why do all physical events have to formally occur but dream events has no comparable formality? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Interesting Feynman Quote
On 26 Feb 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/26/2012 12:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, As I was reading an interesting paper, I ran across an equally interesting quote from Richard Feynman: ‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of spaces, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?’ Bruno's idea explains this by showing that an infinite number of computations run though each and every event in space-time (please correct my wording!). You intuit well that this need rewording. You are still talking like an Aristotelian. Let me put it is this way. There is no space, there is no time, there are no events. Only the arithmetical truth. They represent all computations, including the one which emulates the Löbian numbers' dreams. Physical reality/realities is deep relatively persistent first person realities. So it is not infinite number of computations which run in space-time, it is space-time observations which emerges from arithmetical self- observation. Would Feynman be happy with this answer? Onward! Stephen Adding to my question: Could we equally say that an infinite number of physical processes are running each and every instance of a computation? Good question, and I guess the answer is yes, especially if QM is bot computationalistic correct (= obeying S4Grz1, X1*, and Z1*) and empirically correct (= non refuted for ever (that's different from non refutable)). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Interesting Feynman Quote
On 2/26/2012 3:50 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/26/2012 12:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, As I was reading an interesting paper, I ran across an equally interesting quote from Richard Feynman: ‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of spaces, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?’ Bruno's idea explains this by showing that an infinite number of computations run though each and every event in space-time (please correct my wording!). You intuit well that this need rewording. You are still talking like an Aristotelian. Dear Bruno, I am using the Aristotelian stance as it is the only one that I see as 1p-consistent in these discussions. The Platonist stance would have us taking as articles of faith concepts that are not surveyable (see the previously referenced Laplace draft that I linked previously). I understand that you want to cover this as 3p by using the Yes Doctor and the Teleportation discussion, but this is too context relative to truly be 3p - as it assumes a measure and a particular level of substitution that is functionally invariant. This is the book-keeping problem. Let me put it is this way. There is no space, there is no time, there are no events. Only the arithmetical truth. They represent all computations, including the one which emulates the Löbian numbers' dreams. Physical reality/realities is deep relatively persistent first person realities. I agree with that claim only at the deepest neutral level. My argument is that this alone is problematic as you need to show exactly how the observation of time (measure of change) occurs at the 1p level. You see to think that the transitivity of numbers alone covers this, but that is wrong headed as there exist in Platonia all possible strings of numbers and as Kitada argues, this generates an inconsistency that can only be overcome by adding a Hamiltonian process to 'regularize the inconsistency (making it an oscillator). it would help us if you understood the problem of time, as it seems that you do not. Sorry. So it is not infinite number of computations which run in space-time, it is space-time observations which emerges from arithmetical self-observation. You misunderstand me. I am considering that for each and every 1p there is an infinite number of computations that (via universality can act as Universal Virtual Reality Machines capable of generating its content - D. Deutsch's idea) and, per universality, there are an infinite number of functionally equivalent physical systems that can implement these computations. This is consistent with both your idea and Pratt's. The Stone-type duality here lets us identify the computations with Boolean algebras side of the duality and the physical systems are identified with the Stone spaces. This gives us a natural explanation of how your result is predictive in the physical sense in that it demands that the physical world appear as atoms in a void. We can then generalize the topological spaces via the Pontryagin duality to cover all types of observables. The open problem that I see is whether or not there is a generalization of the Boolean algebra side of the duality; there should be something like a Pontryagin duality for Boolean algebras. Would Feynman be happy with this answer? Onward! Stephen Adding to my question: Could we equally say that an infinite number of physical processes are running each and every instance of a computation? Good question, and I guess the answer is yes, especially if QM is bot computationalistic correct (= obeying S4Grz1, X1*, and Z1*) and empirically correct (= non refuted for ever (that's different from non refutable)). It is computationally correct but we have to be sure that we obey the Kochen-Specker and Gleason theorems, which demand that our Q-logic is not restricted to 2 dimensional systems. Otherwise we are unable to predict large physical structures (e.g having Hilbert spaces of dimension 2). Did you see my query about the LOOMIS–SIKORSKI THEOREM? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Interesting Feynman Quote
Hi Folks, As I was reading an interesting paper, I ran across an interesting quote from Richard Feynman: ‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of spaces, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?’ Bruno's idea explains this by showing that an infinite number of computations run though each and every event in space-time (please correct my wording!). Would Feynman be happy with this answer? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Interesting Feynman Quote
On 2/26/2012 12:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, As I was reading an interesting paper, I ran across an equally interesting quote from Richard Feynman: ‘It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of spaces, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?’ Bruno's idea explains this by showing that an infinite number of computations run though each and every event in space-time (please correct my wording!). Would Feynman be happy with this answer? Onward! Stephen Adding to my question: Could we equally say that an infinite number of physical processes are running each and every instance of a computation? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
