Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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   
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  
 wrote:




2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
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 

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/10/29 Richard Ruquist 

> 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  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 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
>>>
 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 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

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
>>
>>> 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 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 visi

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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  
 wrote:




2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
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   
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) stri

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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   
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 UD-accessi

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

Yeah and a chicken is a dog.
Le 29 oct. 2013 03:41, "Richard Ruquist"  a écrit :

> So matter is just maya-illusion.
> That is really religion- right?
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
>>
>>> 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 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 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, introspect

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 
>
>> 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  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 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 beco

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist 

> 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  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 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 r

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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 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
> in

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *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  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.
>>>
>>>  
>>&

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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  
 wrote:




2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 




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  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

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Stephen Lin]

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 philosopher-

RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Chris de Morsella]

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  wrote:

 

On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 

 

 

2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 

 

 

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 

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[LizR]

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  wrote:

>
> On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *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...

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 




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...

[Quentin Anciaux]

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 

> 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 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 
>>
>>> 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 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 
>>>>
>>>>> 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 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** **
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** **
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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 -
>>>>>

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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 
>
>> 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 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 
>>>
>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>>>>
>>>>>> ** **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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  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 con

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

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 

> 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 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 
>>
>>> 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 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>> *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  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.
&

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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 
>
>> 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 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *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  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 qu

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

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 

> 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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *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  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).
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>&

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 
>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *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  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 

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella 

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *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  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 reconcil

RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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  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 

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  wrote:

>
> 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  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 mat

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Bruno Marchal]

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  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.


Bruno


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 e

RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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  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...

[Bruno Marchal]

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  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...

[Bruno Marchal]

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...

[Chris de Morsella]

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...

[Chris de Morsella]

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 
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

RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Chris de Morsella]

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 

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[meekerdb]

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...

[Russell Standish]

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  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...

[LizR]

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  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 
> 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 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<http://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
>&

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 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
> > [ma

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[LizR]

On 22 October 2013 14:18, meekerdb  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...

[meekerdb]

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...

[Chris de Morsella]

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 (...) string theory. Superconductors can be 
> understood as stars made of charged particles and (...) Higgs bosons. 
> Classical liquid

Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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...

[Russell Standish]

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...

[Chris de Morsella]

"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.