Re: Proof that QTI is false
Yes, I agree that you could still have some form of QTI if there are only a
finite number of states. I just don't believe in it, because I don't think
the use of the relative measure is justified in case the observer isn't
conserved. In all other case the absolute measure and the relative measure
lead to the same predictions.
>
> Actually, in standard quantum mechanics, there is an infinity of
> observer moments, 2^{\aleph_0} of them in fact.
>
> What you are talking about are various quantum gravity theories, such
> as string theory, which appear to have a finite number of observer
> moments.
>
> However, even if as observers we are locked into a Nietschian cycle at
> some point in time due to finiteness of the number of possible states,
> the number will be so large that the practical effects of QTI will
> still need to be considered.
>
> Cheers
>
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
> > observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of
quantum
> > states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
> > experiences a person can have, see here for details:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010
> >
> > If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only
> > experience a finite amount of time.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
> --
--
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --
--
>
>
> --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Saibal
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proof that QTI is false
- Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false > > Saibal Mitra wrote: > > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The > > observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum > > states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or > > experiences a person can have, see here for details: > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010 > > > > If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only > > experience a finite amount of time. > > > > QED. > > So that would imply that when predicting states at some fixed finite time in the > future there is a smallest, non-zero probability that is realizable. So if our > prediction, using continuum variables as an approximation, indicates a probability > lower than this value we should set it to zero?? > > Brent Meeker Yes, but you don't have to set anything to zero by hand. What happens is that if there are only a finite number of quantum states there is one which has the smallest non zero probability. Saibal --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proof that QTI is false
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 08:47:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > So that would imply that when predicting states at some fixed finite time in > the > future there is a smallest, non-zero probability that is realizable. So if > our > prediction, using continuum variables as an approximation, indicates a > probability > lower than this value we should set it to zero?? > > Brent Meeker That is one very common way of mapping continuum models to discrete variables. Another way is probabilitistic assignment, where a value of 0.3 has a 70% chance of being mapped to 0 and 30% chance of being mapped to 1. See my paper "Population models with Random Embryologies as a Paradigm for Evolution" Complexity International, 2 (1994). Of course these two possibilities do not exhaust the space! Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proof that QTI is false
Saibal Mitra wrote: > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The > observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum > states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or > experiences a person can have, see here for details: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010 > > If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only > experience a finite amount of time. > > QED. So that would imply that when predicting states at some fixed finite time in the future there is a smallest, non-zero probability that is realizable. So if our prediction, using continuum variables as an approximation, indicates a probability lower than this value we should set it to zero?? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proof that QTI is false
Actually, in standard quantum mechanics, there is an infinity of
observer moments, 2^{\aleph_0} of them in fact.
What you are talking about are various quantum gravity theories, such
as string theory, which appear to have a finite number of observer
moments.
However, even if as observers we are locked into a Nietschian cycle at
some point in time due to finiteness of the number of possible states,
the number will be so large that the practical effects of QTI will
still need to be considered.
Cheers
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:58:14PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
> QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
> observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum
> states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or
> experiences a person can have, see here for details:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010
>
> If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only
> experience a finite amount of time.
>
> QED.
>
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Proof that QTI is false
Saibal Mitra wrote: > If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only > experience a finite amount of time. Whether or not this is the case, it is a secondary issue to my question re *survivability* (call this the Quantum Theory of Enhanced Personal Survivability, or QTEPS) which is based on the '1st-person pruning' of non-conscious branches of MW. My question to Russell and the list is whether this actually influences real-life behaviour - i.e. is anyone in practice saying 'yes' to this doctor? David > QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The > observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum > states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or > experiences a person can have, see here for details: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010 > > If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only > experience a finite amount of time. > > QED. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Proof that QTI is false
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The observable part of the universe can only be in a finite number of quantum states. So, it can only harbor a finite number of observer moments or experiences a person can have, see here for details: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010 If there can only be a finite number of observer moments you can only experience a finite amount of time. QED. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
