Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/5/2019 4:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:13:16 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/5/2019 1:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose different
>>> coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever) then there
>>> is different metric tensor.  So the integral along the path of g_ab dx^a
>>> dx^b is the same.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I assume you're showing why the proper time along a given path is the
>> same for all observers, and this has nothing to do with coordinate time
>> being unrelated to proper time. AG *
>>
>>
>> Coordinate time between events A and B is just delta(x^0) = x^0(B) -
>> x^0(A).  Just like the longitudinal distance between LA and NY is
>> Long(LA)-Long(NY).  But the driving distance between LA and NY depends on
>> the path you take and is an integral along that path which includes changes
>> in latitude:
>>
>> S^2 = INT_path g_ab dx^a dx^b = INT_path [ dlong*dlong*cos^2(lat) +
>> dlat*dlat]
>>
>> Notice the cos^2 factor because the space isn't  flat.
>>
>> So in GR coordinate time is related to proper time; it contributes a term
>> in accordance with the metric that describes the curvature of the
>> spacetime.  But there are other terms from the spatial coordinates and even
>> cross terms and the terms are weighted by the metric factors that describe
>> the shape of the space.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I think you mean that coordinate time is related to proper time as a path
> is traversed, *
>
>
> Right.  They are related, but not in a simple way.  Each increment of
> coordinate time along the paths contributes to the increment of proper
> time, but it is only one term of several.
>

I recommend Relativity Visualized:

https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Visualized-Lewis-Carroll-Epstein/dp/093521805X

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/5/2019 4:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:13:16 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 1/5/2019 1:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:


The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose
different coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical
or whatever) then there is different metric tensor.  So the
integral along the path of g_ab dx^a dx^b is the same.

Brent


*I assume you're showing why the proper time along a given path
is the same for all observers, and this has nothing to do with
coordinate time being unrelated to proper time. AG *


Coordinate time between events A and B is just delta(x^0) = x^0(B)
- x^0(A).  Just like the longitudinal distance between LA and NY
is Long(LA)-Long(NY).  But the driving distance between LA and NY
depends on the path you take and is an integral along that path
which includes changes in latitude:

    S^2 = INT_path g_ab dx^a dx^b = INT_path [
dlong*dlong*cos^2(lat) + dlat*dlat]

Notice the cos^2 factor because the space isn't  flat.

So in GR coordinate time is related to proper time; it contributes
a term in accordance with the metric that describes the curvature
of the spacetime.  But there are other terms from the spatial
coordinates and even cross terms and the terms are weighted by the
metric factors that describe the shape of the space.

Brent


*I think you mean that coordinate time is related to proper time as a 
path is traversed, *


Right.  They are related, but not in a simple way.  Each increment of 
coordinate time along the paths contributes to the increment of proper 
time, but it is only one term of several.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:13:16 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/5/2019 1:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose different 
>> coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever) then there 
>> is different metric tensor.  So the integral along the path of g_ab dx^a 
>> dx^b is the same.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I assume you're showing why the proper time along a given path is the 
> same for all observers, and this has nothing to do with coordinate time 
> being unrelated to proper time. AG *
>
>
> Coordinate time between events A and B is just delta(x^0) = x^0(B) - 
> x^0(A).  Just like the longitudinal distance between LA and NY is 
> Long(LA)-Long(NY).  But the driving distance between LA and NY depends on 
> the path you take and is an integral along that path which includes changes 
> in latitude:
>
> S^2 = INT_path g_ab dx^a dx^b = INT_path [ dlong*dlong*cos^2(lat) + 
> dlat*dlat]
>
> Notice the cos^2 factor because the space isn't  flat.   
>
> So in GR coordinate time is related to proper time; it contributes a term 
> in accordance with the metric that describes the curvature of the 
> spacetime.  But there are other terms from the spatial coordinates and even 
> cross terms and the terms are weighted by the metric factors that describe 
> the shape of the space.
>
> Brent
>

*I think you mean that coordinate time is related to proper time as a path 
is traversed, even though elapsed coordinate time is the same for all paths 
having the same initial and endpoints in spacetime. AG *

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/5/2019 1:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose different
coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever)
then there is different metric tensor.  So the integral along the
path of g_ab dx^a dx^b is the same.

Brent


*I assume you're showing why the proper time along a given path is the 
same for all observers, and this has nothing to do with coordinate 
time being unrelated to proper time. AG *


Coordinate time between events A and B is just delta(x^0) = x^0(B) - 
x^0(A).  Just like the longitudinal distance between LA and NY is 
Long(LA)-Long(NY).  But the driving distance between LA and NY depends 
on the path you take and is an integral along that path which includes 
changes in latitude:


    S^2 = INT_path g_ab dx^a dx^b = INT_path [ dlong*dlong*cos^2(lat) + 
dlat*dlat]


Notice the cos^2 factor because the space isn't  flat.

So in GR coordinate time is related to proper time; it contributes a 
term in accordance with the metric that describes the curvature of the 
spacetime.  But there are other terms from the spatial coordinates and 
even cross terms and the terms are weighted by the metric factors that 
describe the shape of the space.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:36:34 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/5/2019 12:50 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? 
>> TIA, AG *
>>
>>
>> Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from 
>> distance sailed.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> *Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops, returning to the 
>> same spatial location. *
>>
>>
>> Ok.  Like the traveling twin.
>>
>> *Some amount of proper time will have elapsed*
>>
>>
>> Along that path.
>>
>> *, invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate time will in 
>> general be different, with proper time and coordinate time initialized to 
>> identical but arbitrary values as the path in spacetime is traversed. *
>>
>>
>
>   You can set proper time and coordinate time to the same value at one 
> event (the initial event).  But I don't know what you mean by 
> "intialized...as the path  is traversed".
>
> * That's all I meant, as in your first sentence above. AG*
>
> *The other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since they 
> relate to different events in spacetime, *
>
>
> I don't know what this means.  In generic spacetimes there are no 
> "coordinate clocks".  
>
> *OK, no coordinate clocks. The coordinate t is just the time label for an 
> event. AG*
>
> Coordinates are just smooth functions that provide labels to each point in 
> 4-space.  Since they don't have any physical significance, in general there 
> isn't any physical clock that keeps "coordinate time".   I don't know what 
> you mean by "relate to different events in spacetime".  Clocks just mark 
> intervals along their paths.
>
> *so something is wrong with this model, specifically if the imagined path 
> in spacetime does not return to its initial spatial position. TIA, AG*
>
>
> But you hypothesized that it did.  Now you're worrying that it didn't??  
> Remember that clocks measure intervals between EVENTS (things that have 
> four coordinate values), not between PLACES (things that have three 
> coordinate values).
>
> * This is my problem; maybe a non problem; for any path between two 
> events, the proper time interval is invariant, meaning the same for all 
> observers, but it will be different depending on the paths. But the elapsed 
> coordinate time intervals are the same, since the endpoints represent the 
> same pair of events. So there doesn't seem to be any relationship between 
> elapsed proper time and elapsed coordinate time. AG*
>
>
> The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose different 
> coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever) then there 
> is different metric tensor.  So the integral along the path of g_ab dx^a 
> dx^b is the same.
>
> Brent
>

*I assume you're showing why the proper time along a given path is the same 
for all observers, and this has nothing to do with coordinate time being 
unrelated to proper time. AG *

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/5/2019 12:50 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:

*Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever
differ from proper time? TIA, AG *


Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude
ever differ from distance sailed.

Brent


*Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops,
returning to the same spatial location. *


Ok.  Like the traveling twin.

*Some amount of proper time will have elapsed*


Along that path.

*, invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate
time will in general be different, with proper time and
coordinate time initialized to identical but arbitrary values
as the path in spacetime is traversed. *



  You can set proper time and coordinate time to the same value at one 
event (the initial event).  But I don't know what you mean by 
"intialized...as the path  is traversed".

*
*
*That's all I meant, as in your first sentence above. AG*

*The other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since 
they relate to different events in spacetime, *


I don't know what this means.  In generic spacetimes there are no 
"coordinate clocks".


*OK, no coordinate clocks. The coordinate t is just the time label for 
an event. AG*


Coordinates are just smooth functions that provide labels to each 
point in 4-space.  Since they don't have any physical significance, in 
general there isn't any physical clock that keeps "coordinate time".   
I don't know what you mean by "relate to different events in 
spacetime".  Clocks just mark intervals along their paths.


*so something is wrong with this model, specifically if the imagined 
path in spacetime does not return to its initial spatial position. 
TIA, AG*


But you hypothesized that it did.  Now you're worrying that it 
didn't??  Remember that clocks measure intervals between EVENTS 
(things that have four coordinate values), not between PLACES (things 
that have three coordinate values).


*This is my problem; maybe a non problem; for any path between two 
events, the proper time interval is invariant, meaning the same for 
all observers, but it will be different depending on the paths. But 
the elapsed coordinate time intervals are the same, since the 
endpoints represent the same pair of events. So there doesn't seem to 
be any relationship between elapsed proper time and elapsed coordinate 
time. AG*


The relation is provided by the metric.  If you choose different 
coordinate systems (e.g. cylindrical or spherical or whatever) then 
there is different metric tensor.  So the integral along the path of 
g_ab dx^a dx^b is the same.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:50 PM  wrote:

> On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time?
>> TIA, AG *
>>
>>
>> Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from
>> distance sailed.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> *Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops, returning to the
>> same spatial location. *
>>
>>
>> Ok.  Like the traveling twin.
>>
>> *Some amount of proper time will have elapsed*
>>
>>
>> Along that path.
>>
>> *, invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate time will in
>> general be different, with proper time and coordinate time initialized to
>> identical but arbitrary values as the path in spacetime is traversed. *
>>
>>
>
>   You can set proper time and coordinate time to the same value at one
> event (the initial event).  But I don't know what you mean by
> "intialized...as the path  is traversed".
>
> * That's all I meant, as in your first sentence above. AG*
>
> *The other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since they
> relate to different events in spacetime, *
>
>
> I don't know what this means.  In generic spacetimes there are no
> "coordinate clocks".
>
> *OK, no coordinate clocks. The coordinate t is just the time label for an
> event. AG*
>
> Coordinates are just smooth functions that provide labels to each point in
> 4-space.  Since they don't have any physical significance, in general there
> isn't any physical clock that keeps "coordinate time".   I don't know what
> you mean by "relate to different events in spacetime".  Clocks just mark
> intervals along their paths.
>
> *so something is wrong with this model, specifically if the imagined path
> in spacetime does not return to its initial spatial position. TIA, AG*
>
>
> But you hypothesized that it did.  Now you're worrying that it didn't??
> Remember that clocks measure intervals between EVENTS (things that have
> four coordinate values), not between PLACES (things that have three
> coordinate values).
>
> * This is my problem; maybe a non problem; for any path between two
> events, the proper time interval is invariant, meaning the same for all
> observers, but it will be different depending on the paths. But the elapsed
> coordinate time intervals are the same, since the endpoints represent the
> same pair of events. So there doesn't seem to be any relationship between
> elapsed proper time and elapsed coordinate time. AG*
>

Got it in one!

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 6:49:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? 
> TIA, AG *
>
>
> Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from 
> distance sailed.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops, returning to the 
> same spatial location. *
>
>
> Ok.  Like the traveling twin.
>
> *Some amount of proper time will have elapsed*
>
>
> Along that path.
>
> *, invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate time will in 
> general be different, with proper time and coordinate time initialized to 
> identical but arbitrary values as the path in spacetime is traversed. *
>
>

  You can set proper time and coordinate time to the same value at one 
event (the initial event).  But I don't know what you mean by 
"intialized...as the path  is traversed".

* That's all I meant, as in your first sentence above. AG*

*The other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since they 
relate to different events in spacetime, *


I don't know what this means.  In generic spacetimes there are no 
"coordinate clocks".  

*OK, no coordinate clocks. The coordinate t is just the time label for an 
event. AG*

Coordinates are just smooth functions that provide labels to each point in 
4-space.  Since they don't have any physical significance, in general there 
isn't any physical clock that keeps "coordinate time".   I don't know what 
you mean by "relate to different events in spacetime".  Clocks just mark 
intervals along their paths.

*so something is wrong with this model, specifically if the imagined path 
in spacetime does not return to its initial spatial position. TIA, AG*


But you hypothesized that it did.  Now you're worrying that it didn't??  
Remember that clocks measure intervals between EVENTS (things that have 
four coordinate values), not between PLACES (things that have three 
coordinate values).

* This is my problem; maybe a non problem; for any path between two events, 
the proper time interval is invariant, meaning the same for all observers, 
but it will be different depending on the paths. But the elapsed coordinate 
time intervals are the same, since the endpoints represent the same pair of 
events. So there doesn't seem to be any relationship between elapsed proper 
time and elapsed coordinate time. AG*

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



*Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from
proper time? TIA, AG *


Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever
differ from distance sailed.

Brent


*Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops, returning to 
the same spatial location. *


Ok.  Like the traveling twin.


*Some amount of proper time will have elapsed*


Along that path.

*, invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate time will 
in general be different, with proper time and coordinate time 
initialized to identical but arbitrary values as the path in spacetime 
is traversed. *


You can set proper time and coordinate time to the same value at one 
event (the initial event).  But I don't know what you mean by 
"intialized...as the path  is traversed".


*The other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since they 
relate to different events in spacetime, *


I don't know what this means.  In generic spacetimes there are no 
"coordinate clocks".  Coordinates are just smooth functions that provide 
labels to each point in 4-space.  Since they don't have any physical 
significance, in general there isn't any physical clock that keeps 
"coordinate time".   I don't know what you mean by "relate to different 
events in spacetime".  Clocks just mark intervals along their paths.


*so something is wrong with this model, specifically if the imagined 
path in spacetime does not return to its initial spatial position. 
TIA, AG*


But you hypothesized that it did.  Now you're worrying that it didn't??  
Remember that clocks measure intervals between EVENTS (things that have 
four coordinate values), not between PLACES (things that have three 
coordinate values).


Brent

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 3:23:54 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2019 6:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 

 On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  
> wrote:
>
> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to 
>> New York and their odometers registered different distances then one of 
>> the 
>> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring 
>> the fact that they took different routes.*
>>
>
> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is 
> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying 
> the 
> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant 
> and 
> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even 
> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its 
> nonsense  
>
> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the 
>>> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, 
>>> but 
>>> proper time is *not* invariant;
>>
>>
>> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a 
>> given path. *
>>
>
> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've 
> not only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the 
> exact 
> same distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path 
> through spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting 
> than X=X, If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths 
> we'll disagree on the distance through space that was required and 
> disagree 
> on the distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on 
> the 
> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and 
> that's why it's useful.  
>  
>
>> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length 
>> of the longest proper time path between them.*
>>
>
> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula 
> for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's 
> green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a 
> invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same 
> units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is 
> no 
> disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit 
> error or learn from it.
>

 So learn from this!
 The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper 
 time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by 
 a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along 
 which the rate of time is constant.

>>>
>>> *If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer 
>>> who reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *
>>>
>>
>> For the observer sitting at rest in the one location, his clock reads 
>> both coordinate time and proper time. For an observer in motion, his clock 
>> reads only proper time, not coordinate time.
>>
>
> *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? 
> TIA, AG *
>
>
> Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from 
> distance sailed.
>
> Brent
>

*Suppose I imagine a path in spacetime, say with loops, returning to the 
same spatial location. Some amount of proper time will have elapsed, 
invariant for all observers, but the elapsed coordinate time will in 
general be different, with proper time and coordinate time initialized to 
identical but arbitrary values as the path in spacetime is traversed. The 
other imagined coordinate clocks can't be synchronized since they relate to 
different events in spacetime, so something is wrong with this model, 
specifically if the imagined path in spacetime does not return to its 
initial spatial position. TIA, AG*

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/4/2019 6:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM >
wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark
 wrote:

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:

/> That's like saying if two people drove
different cars from L.A. to New York and their
odometers registered different distances then one
of the odometers must have measured miles
differently than the other...ignoring the fact
that they took different routes./


No it's more like you claiming the odometer which
measures miles is telling you the time which is
measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the readings
on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a
invariant and so will always give the same reading
regardless of the path took, even though they *don't
have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense

>> The spacetime distance d is *not*the proper
time, the spacetime distance is an invariant,
it's the same for all observers, but proper
time is *not*invariant;


/> Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an
invariant of a given path. /


Obviously!! If you take the same path through
spacetime then you've not only traveled the exact same
distance through time but moved the exact same
distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be
the same path through spacetime. But Einstein told us
something much more interesting than X=X, If we travel
between event A  and event B by different paths we'll
disagree on the distance through space that was
required and disagree on the distance through time
that was required but we'll both agree on the distance
through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a
invariant and that's why it's useful.

/> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike
events is the length of the longest proper time
path between them./


Brent, this is getting silly. If  d^2 =  r^2 -
(ct)^2is the formula for spacetime distance (*AND IT
IS!*) then there is no way on god's green earth the
proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a
invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't
even have the same units. I really don't know what
else I can tell you except that there is no disgrace
in being wrong but there is disgracein refusing to
admit error or learn from it.


So learn from this!
The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not
the proper time. Learn the difference! The proper time is
defined as the time kept by a perfect clock travelling on
a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along which the
rate of time is constant.


*If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the
observer who reads coordinate time, or the clock recording
coordinate time? TIA, AG *


For the observer sitting at rest in the one location, his clock
reads both coordinate time and proper time. For an observer in
motion, his clock reads only proper time, not coordinate time.


*Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper 
time? TIA, AG *


Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from 
distance sailed.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  
 wrote:

 *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to 
> New York and their odometers registered different distances then one of 
> the 
> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring 
> the fact that they took different routes.*
>

 No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is 
 telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the 
 readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant 
 and 
 so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even 
 though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense 
  

 >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the 
>> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but 
>> proper time is *not* invariant;
>
>
> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a 
> given path. *
>

 Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not 
 only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact 
 same 
 distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through 
 spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X, 
 If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll 
 disagree 
 on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the 
 distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the 
 distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and 
 that's why it's useful.  
  

> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length 
> of the longest proper time path between them.*
>

 Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula 
 for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's 
 green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a 
 invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same 
 units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is 
 no 
 disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit 
 error or learn from it.

>>>
>>> So learn from this!
>>> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper 
>>> time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by 
>>> a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along 
>>> which the rate of time is constant.
>>>
>>
>> *If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer 
>> who reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *
>>
>
> For the observer sitting at rest in the one location, his clock reads both 
> coordinate time and proper time. For an observer in motion, his clock reads 
> only proper time, not coordinate time.
>

*Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? 
TIA, AG *

>
> In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2, d = t if and only if r = 0. (natural 
> units). 
>
> Bruce
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

I just happened to see this response on Quora today:

=
How does one resolve the twin paradox in a toroidal universe? 


Viktor T. Toth 
Viktor T. Toth , IT pro, 
part-time physicist
Answered 10h ago 




You resolve the twin “paradox” in any universe the same as always: by 
noting that each traveler measures/proper time/, which is the 
four-dimensional “length” of their worldline, and that when two 
worldlines connect the same two events, they need not be of equal length.


I mean, really. What’s the paradox here? Grab a sheet of paper. Mark two 
points. Connect them with a pencil, drawing a fancy curve. Now connect 
them again, drawing a fancier curve. Or a less fancy one. whatever. You 
will see that some curves are longer than others. But pray tell me, is 
this really a paradox?


In the very special case of the flat space spacetime of special 
relativity, when two events are connected, there is only 
one/geodesic/(that is to say, a straight line in flat spacetime) that 
connects the two events. So if the two twins travel different 
trajectories, only one can follow a geodesic, that is, move with no 
acceleration. The other twin has to accelerate, so his worldline will 
not be a geodesic. (Because of the peculiar way time works in 
relativistic spacetime, this twin, with the seemingly “longer” 
worldline, will be the one who experiences less elapsed time.)


In the case of a generic spacetime, there may be multiple geodesics of 
unequal length connecting the same two events.


This has been well known since the 19th century, and has never been 
viewed as a real “paradox” by those who first considered it in the 
context of relativity theory, merely a peculiar consequence of the 
non-intuitive nature of the theory. I suspect it only became a “paradox” 
later, mostly as a result of either efforts to “prove” Einstein’s theory 
wrong by folks who never understood it in the first place, or by 
misguided popularizations, aiming to impress, rather than inform, the 
lay reader.


==

Brent

On 1/4/2019 1:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


> /You said *t was the proper time for me to take the trip*. /


Yes.

> /But the proper time is what a clock measures /


Yes,

> /and so it depends on the path you took in making the trip. /


Yes. And that is exactly why proper time is *NOT* an invariant, but 
the 4D length through spacetime is.


>> I said "proper time is *NOT*an invariant"!


/> You apparently use "invariant" in a strange way. /


I only know how to use the word one way, a invariant is something that 
doesn't change with a change in coordinates.


/>Proper time is an invariant length of a path in 4-space. /


No No a thousand times NO!! Proper timeis not the length of ANYTHING 
in 4-space and proper time is NOT a invariant, Newton thought it was 
but Einstein showed it was not.


> /Invariant means that all different observers agree on it. /


And I and my astronaut twin do not agree on the proper time, if we did 
we'd still be the same age when he returned to Earth and we're not.


> /It doesn't mean the length of a path is independent of the path./


It does mean the 4D length between events is independent of the path.

>>No observer agrees on that because no observer knows what the
hell meters minus seconds means. But you did agree above that
proper time is the time measured by a clock along any line
through spacetime, so for my twin that was on a rocket at near
light speed and then returned the proper time is one year, but
for me who stayed on Earth the proper time was 10 years.
Therefore proper time can not be a invariant, therefore the
length of the path throughspacetime can NOT be the proper time
because the length of thepath through spacetime IS an invariant.

/> The length of which path? /


The length of any 4D spacetime path between Event A and Event B that 
you care to name. The distance between events is always the same 
regardless of the particular path chosen, the distance traveled in the 
X,Y and Z directions could all be different, and t could be different 
too, but when anybody calculates X^2+y^2 + Z^2 - (ct)^2  they always 
get the exact same number because the spacetime distance is an invariant.


> /Every observer can read the clock as it moves along the path and
they will all agree on the length of the path. /


They all agree on the length of the 4D path through spacetime to get 
from Event A to Event B but if they took 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 1:41 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:08 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2*   [...]
>>
>
> That's not my formula, I used d^2 = r^2 - (ct)^2 , that way the units
> always come out right.
>

I did make it clear that I use natural units -- or do you not know what
those are?

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> > *You said t was the proper time for me to take the trip. *
>

Yes.


> > *But the proper time is what a clock measures *
>

Yes,


> > *and so it depends on the path you took in making the trip.  *
>

Yes. And that is exactly why proper time is *NOT* an invariant, but the 4D
length through spacetime is.

>> I said "proper time is *NOT* an invariant"!
>
>
> * > You apparently use "invariant" in a strange way. *
>

I only know how to use the word one way, a invariant is something that
doesn't change with a change in coordinates.

*>Proper time is an invariant length of a path in 4-space. *
>

 No No a thousand times NO!! Proper time is not the length of ANYTHING in
4-space and proper time is NOT a invariant, Newton thought it was but
Einstein showed it was not.


> > *Invariant means that all different observers agree on it. *
>

And I and my astronaut twin do not agree on the proper time, if we did we'd
still be the same age when he returned to Earth and we're not.


> > *It doesn't mean the length of a path is independent of the path.*
>

It does mean the 4D length between events is independent of the path.


> >>No observer agrees on that because no observer knows what the hell
>> meters minus seconds means. But you did agree above that proper time is the
>> time measured by a clock along any line through spacetime, so for my twin
>> that was on a rocket at near light speed and then returned the proper time
>> is one year, but for me who stayed on Earth the proper time was 10 years.
>> Therefore proper time can not be a invariant, therefore the length of the
>> path through spacetime can NOT be the proper time because the length of
>> the path through spacetime IS an invariant.
>
>

*> The length of which path? *
>

The length of any 4D spacetime path between Event A and Event B that you
care to name. The distance between events is always the same regardless of
the particular path chosen, the distance traveled in the X,Y and Z
directions could all be different, and t could be different too, but when
anybody calculates X^2+y^2 + Z^2 - (ct)^2  they always get the exact same
number because the spacetime distance is an invariant.


> > *Every observer can read the clock as it moves along the path and they
> will all agree on the length of the path. *
>

They all agree on the length of the 4D path through spacetime to get from
Event A to Event B but if they took different paths they will disagree on
the distance traveled through space and the time it took to make it aka the
proper time.


> >> They don't agree on the spacial interval or the time interval, but
> they agree on the proper time the clock measures along the path.  THAT's
> what "invariant" means.
>
> > *You are using the word "observer" as though it referred to a traveler,
> but in relativity it usually means someone measuring a physical process
> from a different state of motion. *
>

If I'm measuring a clock that is in a different state of motion, that is to
say a clock that is not in my reference frame, then what I am measuring is
NOT my proper time.

> >>Proper Time is defined as the amount of change an observer has seen a
>> clock make that is in the same reference frame as the observer.
>>>
>>>
>
> * > NO.  The definition doesn't require the observer to be moving with the
> clock.  *
>

At this point you're not even trying, if I say X=Y all you can say is "no,
X is not y".

An argument is not just contradiction


John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/4/2019 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


>>If I travel from event A to event B and use the formula x^2 +
y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 



/> You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in
which case your formula will yield an negative squared distance./


So what? The entire point of looking at things from a spacetime 
perspective is to find a invariant that everybody can agree on, and d 
provides it. If you don't like imaginary numbers then use d^2, if you 
don't like negative numbers then use d^4 and get an old 
fashioned positive Real Number; use whichever one that strikes your 
fancy it doesn't matter because they're all invariants.


>>where x,y,and z are the differences in spatial coordinates I
observe and *t is the proper time* it took for me to make the
trip I will get an invariant. 



/>No./

Yes.

> /To make that work you have to put in the difference in time
coordinate for t. /


Yes, what else could t mean?


You said *t was the proper time for me to take the trip*.  But the 
proper time is what a clock measures and so it depends on the path you 
took in making the trip.


In the formula for spacetime distance x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 t is the 
difference between what a clock was reading when it started its 
journey from what it is reading when it ended its journey between the 
2 events; and c is the all important speed of light, the only thing 
that prevents the formula from being Monty Python level silly.


>>The proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock
along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot
in hell if that line is a geodesic or not. 



/>That's right./


OK.

>>you said "/Proper time is the distance through spacetime/" but
every book on physics on the planet will tell you that the
distance through spacetime is an invariant; but proper time is
NOT a invariant, different observers can have different proper
times, 



>/No. /


No? What the hell do you mean "No"?!

> /Different paths between two events have different proper times
between the same two events./


Exactly true, and that is exactly why I said "proper time is *NOT* an 
invariant"!


You apparently use "invariant" in a strange way.  Proper time is an 
invariant length of a path in 4-space.  Just as the length of interstate 
10 from L.A. to S.F. is an invariant.  Invariant means that all 
different observers agree on it.  It doesn't mean the length of a path 
is independent of the path.



> /All observers will agree on the length (proper time duration) of
those paths/


No observer agrees on that because no observer knows what the hell 
meters minus seconds means. But you did agree above that proper time 
is the time measured by a clock along any line through spacetime, so 
for my twin that was on a rocket at near light speed and then returned 
the proper time is one year, but for me who stayed on Earth the proper 
time was 10 years. Therefore proper time can not be a invariant, 
therefore the length of the path through spacetime can NOT be the 
proper time because the length of the path through spacetime *IS *an 
invariant.


The length of which path?  Every observer can read the clock as it moves 
along the path and they will all agree on the length of the path.  They 
don't agree on the spacial interval or the time interval, but they 
argree on the proper time the clock measures along the path.  THAT's 
what "invariant" means.




> /You are using the word "observer" as though it referred to a
traveler, but in relativity it usually means someone measuring a
physical process from a different state of motion. /


Proper Time is defined as the amount of change an observer has seen a 
clock make that is in the same reference frame as the observer.


NO.  The definition doesn't require the observer to be moving with the 
clock.



>> So your ideas are not self consistent but then they had to
be, spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same
units.


/> You keep a harping on units. /


Yes, apart from confusion of units your ideas are great. And other 
than that how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?


Tell it to the SI committee.


/>That has not more significance than the fact that we measure the
length of highways in miles and widths in feet. /


*Bullshit*. We're not talking about confusing miles and feet we're 
talking about something far dumber, confusing meters and seconds. The 
first thing they teach you on day one of high school physics is YOU'VE 
GOT TO GET THE UNITS RIGHT, otherwise you're talking nonsense.  And it 
doesn't get any more nonsensical than subtracting seconds from meters. 
The fact that you're STILL defending this ridiculous notion speaks 
volumes.


The first thing they teach you 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>>If I travel from event A to event B and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2
>> -(ct)^2
>
>
> * > You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in which
> case your formula will yield an negative squared distance.*
>

So what? The entire point of looking at things from a spacetime perspective
is to find a invariant that everybody can agree on, and d provides it. If
you don't like imaginary numbers then use d^2, if you don't like negative
numbers then use d^4 and get an old fashioned positive Real Number; use
whichever one that strikes your fancy it doesn't matter because they're all
invariants.

>>where x,y,and z are the differences in spatial coordinates I observe and *t
>> is the proper time* it took for me to make the trip I will get an
>> invariant.
>
>
> * >No.*
>

Yes.


>   > *To make that work you have to put in the difference in time
> coordinate for t. *
>

Yes, what else could t mean? In the formula for spacetime distance  x^2 +
y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2   t is the difference between what a clock was reading
when it started its journey from what it is reading when it ended its
journey between the 2 events; and c is the all important speed of light,
the only thing that prevents the formula from being Monty Python level
silly.


> >>The  proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock along ANY
>> line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if that line is
>> a geodesic or not.
>
>
> *>That's right.*
>

OK.

>>you said "*Proper time is the distance through spacetime*" but every book
>> on physics on the planet will tell you that the distance through spacetime
>> is an invariant; but proper time is NOT a invariant, different observers
>> can have different proper times,
>
>
> >*No. *
>

No? What the hell do you mean "No"?!


> > *Different paths between two events have different proper times between
> the same two events.*
>

Exactly true, and that is exactly why I said "proper time is *NOT* an
invariant"!


>  > *All observers will agree on the length (proper time duration) of
> those paths*
>

No observer agrees on that because no observer knows what the hell meters
minus seconds means. But you did agree above that proper time is the time
measured by a clock along any line through spacetime, so for my twin that
was on a rocket at near light speed and then returned the proper time is
one year, but for me who stayed on Earth the proper time was 10 years.
Therefore proper time can not be a invariant, therefore the length of the
path through spacetime can NOT be the proper time because the length of the
path through spacetime *IS *an invariant.


> > *You are using the word "observer" as though it referred to a traveler,
> but in relativity it usually means someone measuring a physical process
> from a different state of motion. *
>

Proper Time is defined as the amount of change an observer has seen a clock
make that is in the same reference frame as the observer.


> >> So your ideas are not self consistent but then they had to be,
>> spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same units.
>
>
> * > You keep a harping on units. *
>

Yes, apart from confusion of units your ideas are great. And other than
that how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?


> *>That has not more significance than the fact that we measure the length
> of highways in miles and widths in feet. *
>

*Bullshit*. We're not talking about confusing miles and feet we're talking
about something far dumber, confusing meters and seconds. The first thing
they teach you on day one of high school physics is YOU'VE GOT TO GET THE
UNITS RIGHT, otherwise you're talking nonsense.  And it doesn't get any
more nonsensical than subtracting seconds from meters. The fact that you're
STILL defending this ridiculous notion speaks volumes.


> * > In practice, all distance measurements are made with clocks. *
>

Not unless the speed you're moving at is known.


> >
> *If someone wants the answer in meters they use the conversion factor
> 299792458 meter/second.*
>

And you may be uncertain about how fast you're moving but one thing is
absolutely certain, it is *NOT* 299792458 meter/second.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:08 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2*   [...]
>

That's not my formula, I used d^2 = r^2 - (ct)^2 , that way the units
always come out right.

John K Clark



>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/3/2019 6:03 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



So learn from this!
The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the
proper time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as
the time kept by a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a
geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.


*If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer 
who reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? 
TIA, AG *





Coordinates are just labels for events.  In general there are not clocks 
that will agree with a given coordinate time although you can imagine 
sets of clocks that would define coordinates.  Take a look at Ned 
Wright's cosmology tutorial and see how he defines different coordinate 
systems to elucidate different aspects of cosmology.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM  wrote:

> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to
 New York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the
 odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring
 the fact that they took different routes.*

>>>
>>> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is
>>> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the
>>> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and
>>> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even
>>> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense
>>>
>>>
>>> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the
> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but
> proper time is *not* invariant;


 * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given
 path. *

>>>
>>> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not
>>> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same
>>> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through
>>> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X,
>>> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree
>>> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the
>>> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the
>>> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and
>>> that's why it's useful.
>>>
>>>
 *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length
 of the longest proper time path between them.*

>>>
>>> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula
>>> for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's
>>> green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a
>>> invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same
>>> units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no
>>> disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit
>>> error or learn from it.
>>>
>>
>> So learn from this!
>> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
>> time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by
>> a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along
>> which the rate of time is constant.
>>
>
> *If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer who
> reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *
>

For the observer sitting at rest in the one location, his clock reads both
coordinate time and proper time. For an observer in motion, his clock reads
only proper time, not coordinate time.

In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2, d = t if and only if r = 0. (natural
units).

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>>
>> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New 
>>> York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the 
>>> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring 
>>> the fact that they took different routes.*
>>>
>>
>> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is 
>> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the 
>> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and 
>> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even 
>> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense   
>>
>>
>> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the 
 spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but 
 proper time is *not* invariant;
>>>
>>>
>>> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given 
>>> path. *
>>>
>>
>> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not 
>> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same 
>> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through 
>> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X, 
>> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree 
>> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the 
>> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the 
>> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and 
>> that's why it's useful.  
>>  
>>
>>> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length of 
>>> the longest proper time path between them.*
>>>
>>
>> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula 
>> for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's 
>> green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a 
>> invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same 
>> units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no 
>> disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit error 
>> or learn from it.
>>
>
> So learn from this!
> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper time. 
> Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by a 
> perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along 
> which the rate of time is constant.
>

*If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer who 
reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *

>
> Bruce 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/3/2019 12:05 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote:


/> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the
proper time. /


What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event 
B and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2


You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in which case 
your formula will yield an negative squared distance.


where x,y,and z are the differences in spatial coordinates I observe 
and *t is the proper time* it took for me to make the trip I will get 
an invariant.


No.  To make that work you have to put in the difference in time 
coordinate for t. THEN you get the invariant interval (in flat 
spacetime) also known at the proper interval, or the proper time when A 
and B are timelike.  When spactime isn't flat, or the path isn't the 
extremal path you have to integrate the proper time intervals along the 
path.


If you also travel between event A and B but use a different path you 
will get entirely different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a 
different number for *the proper time t,* but when you plug in your 
numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  you will get the exact same 
value I do.


/> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
travelling on a geodesic./


No it is not! The proper time is defined as the time measured by a 
clock along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in 
hell if that line is a geodesic or not.


That's right.

And you said "/Proper time is the distance through spacetime/" but 
every book on physics on the planet will tell you that the distance 
through spacetime is an invariant; but proper time is NOT a invariant, 
different observers can have different proper times,


No.  Different paths between two events have different proper times 
between the same two events.  All observers will agree on the length 
(proper time duration) of those paths because that is what a clock 
measures along the path...it is not observer dependent.  You are using 
the word "observer" as though it referred to a traveler, but in 
relativity it usually means someone measuring a physical process from a 
different state of motion.  So an observer of a path through spacetime 
may measure it to have different coordinate time changes and different 
spacial distance changes, but still the same path length or proper time.


even you know this because you said "/two different orbits of the 
Earth, both geodesics, can coincide at a pair of events.  They will 
measure different proper times between those events/".


Actually I wrote that, not Bruce.

So your ideas are not self consistent but then they had to be, 
spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same units.


You keep a harping on units.  That has not more significance than the 
fact that we measure the length of highways in miles and widths in 
feet.  In practice, all distance measurements are made with clocks.  If 
someone wants the answer in meters they use the conversion factor 
299792458 meter/second.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:06 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>
>> *> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
>> time. *
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event B
> and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  where x,y,and z are the
> differences in spatial coordinates I observe and *t is the proper time*
> it took for me to make the trip I will get an invariant.  If you also
> travel between event A and B but use a different path you will get entirely
> different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a different number for *the
> proper time t,* but when you plug in your numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2
> -(ct)^2  you will get the exact same value I do.
>

You clearly do not know =what 'proper time' is.


>
>
>> *> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
>> travelling on a geodesic.*
>>
>
> No it is not! The  proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock
> along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if
> that line is a geodesic or not. And you said "*Proper time is the
> distance through spacetime*" but every book on physics on the planet will
> tell you that the distance through spacetime is an invariant; but proper
> time is NOT a invariant,
>

Wikipedia thinks that it is.at least in non-curved space-times.


> different observers can have different proper times, even you know this
> because you said "*two different orbits of the Earth, both geodesics, can
> coincide at a pair of events.  They will measure different proper times
> between those events*". So your ideas are not self consistent but then
> they had to be, spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same
> units.
>
> The reason you need both a odometer and a clock in your car is that they
> measure different things. And no matter how hard you try you're never going
> to be able to subtract seconds from meters, so why are we still arguing
> about this when it's obvious you're wrong?
>

Have you never heard of natural units, units in which c = 1?

Bruce


> > *And a geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.*
>>
>
> What the hell?! Obviously the rate of time is always constant for any
> observer in the same reference frame as the clock regardless if the path is
> a geodesic or not, it will always change at the rate of one second per
> second . It doesn't take a Einstein to know that.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


> *> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
> time. *
>

What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event B
and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  where x,y,and z are the
differences in spatial coordinates I observe and *t is the proper time* it
took for me to make the trip I will get an invariant.  If you also travel
between event A and B but use a different path you will get entirely
different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a different number for *the
proper time t,* but when you plug in your numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2
-(ct)^2  you will get the exact same value I do.


> *> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
> travelling on a geodesic.*
>

No it is not! The  proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock
along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if
that line is a geodesic or not. And you said "*Proper time is the distance
through spacetime*" but every book on physics on the planet will tell you
that the distance through spacetime is an invariant; but proper time is NOT
a invariant, different observers can have different proper times, even you
know this because you said "*two different orbits of the Earth, both
geodesics, can coincide at a pair of events.  They will measure different
proper times between those events*". So your ideas are not self consistent
but then they had to be, spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in
the same units.

The reason you need both a odometer and a clock in your car is that they
measure different things. And no matter how hard you try you're never going
to be able to subtract seconds from meters, so why are we still arguing
about this when it's obvious you're wrong?


> > *And a geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.*
>

What the hell?! Obviously the rate of time is always constant for any
observer in the same reference frame as the clock regardless if the path is
a geodesic or not, it will always change at the rate of one second per
second . It doesn't take a Einstein to know that.

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New
>> York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the
>> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring
>> the fact that they took different routes.*
>>
>
> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is
> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the
> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and
> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even
> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense
>
>
> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the
>>> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but
>>> proper time is *not* invariant;
>>
>>
>> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given
>> path. *
>>
>
> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not
> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same
> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through
> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X,
> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree
> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the
> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the
> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and
> that's why it's useful.
>
>
>> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length of
>> the longest proper time path between them.*
>>
>
> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula for
> spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's green
> earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a invariant and
> the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same units. I really
> don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no disgrace in
> being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit error or learn
> from it.
>

So learn from this!
The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper time.
Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by a
perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along
which the rate of time is constant.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New
> York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the
> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring
> the fact that they took different routes.*
>

No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is telling
you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the readings
on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and so will
always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even though
they *don't
have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense

>> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the
>> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but
>> proper time is *not* invariant;
>
>
> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given
> path. *
>

Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not
only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same
distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through
spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X,
If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree
on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the
distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the
distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and
that's why it's useful.


> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length of
> the longest proper time path between them.*
>

Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula for
spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's green earth
the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a invariant and the
other isn't and the two things don't even have the same units. I really
don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no disgrace in
being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit error or learn from
it.

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/2/2019 8:28 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:09 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


/> And for two spacelike events (as I specified) h^2 < 0  so you
have made the interval along a world line, the proper time,
imaginary. /


The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the 
spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, 
but proper time is *not* invariant;


Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given 
path. The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length 
of the longest proper time path between them.


your proper time is not my proper time if we're moving relative to 
each other, accelerating at different rates, or in different 
gravitational fields. But we both always agree on how much we moved 
through spacetime since our last meeting.


But obviously if d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2  (where d is the invariant 
distance in spacetime and r the distance in space) then d can be 
imaginary if t is large, and that's one reason physicists usually use 
d^2 not d when they want a invariant. If it's your position that the 
formula given in all books on relativity for that spacetime invariant 
are wrong then please inform us of the correct one. If the formula is 
correct then the distance through spacetime simply can *not* be the 
proper time as you said.


> /You're making a big distinction between spacelike 'distance' and
'proper time'. But it's just muddling the point that the geodesic
followed by a body is the longest interval. /


Yes aclock following a geodesic will show the largest proper time and 
yes I am making a big deal about the proper time not being the 
spacetime distance because they're not even in compatible units, one 
is in seconds and the other is in meters. It's like trying to 
subtract acres from nanoseconds, it doesn't make any physical sense.


>>You can never find a distance between anything by subtracting
seconds from meters, that would be gibberish, but you can
subtract meters from meters.

/>That's why the speed of light is now just a conversion factor./


Just? The speed of light is *just* the bridge between two otherwise 
incompatible quantities because you *just* can't subtract seconds from 
meters! And it's *just* a fact that Google was right and you were 
wrong when it said a geodesic was /"the shortest possible line between 
two points on a sphere or other curved surface"./


>>Doesn't slow a clock down relative to what?


/> It's a negative, John!  It doesn't slow down realtive to
anything. /


Of course it does! If 2 clocks start out synchronized on the Earth and 
one stays put but the other is put on a rocket and blasted away into 
space at near the speed of light and then accelerated in the opposite 
direction so it can return to Earth then the clocks will no longer be 
synchronized when they meet again. So obviously *one clock must have 
slowed down relative to the other, *or equivalently one clock must 
have sped up relative to the other because that's what 
"unsynchronized" means.


/> Ideal clocks in relativity are assumed to accurately measure
proper time along their world line. /


And that's why I said "in Relativity, a clock never slows down 
relative to an observer in the same reference frame"


> /They never run slow or fast...they just follow different paths./


But that's exactly what clocks slowing down or speeding up between 
events means, following different paths through spacetime.


> /You're one that referred to the clock being slowed down.  "Then
one twin would encounter a intense gravitational field that the
other twin did not and *gravity will slow down a clock just like
moving fast will.*"/


Yes and in that I was absolutely correct. When the clocks meet again 
after one went on its rocket journey the previously synchronized 
clocks are now unsynchronized. Unsynchronizedmeans showing different 
times, so during the journey one clock *MUST* have run slower than the 
other.


That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New 
York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the 
odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring 
the fact that they took different routes.


Brent



John K Clark




--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:09 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > And for two spacelike events (as I specified) h^2 < 0  so you have made
> the interval along a world line, the proper time, imaginary. *
>

The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the spacetime distance
is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but proper time is *not*
invariant; your proper time is not my proper time if we're moving relative
to each other, accelerating at different rates, or in different
gravitational fields. But we both always agree on how much we moved through
spacetime since our last meeting.

But obviously if d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2  (where d is the invariant distance in
spacetime and r the distance in space) then d can be imaginary if t is
large, and that's one reason physicists usually use d^2 not d when they
want a invariant. If it's your position that the formula given in all books
on relativity for that spacetime invariant are wrong then please inform us
of the correct one. If the formula is correct then the distance through
spacetime simply can *not* be the proper time as you said.


> > *You're making a big distinction between spacelike 'distance' and
> 'proper time'. But it's just muddling the point that the geodesic followed
> by a body is the longest interval. *
>

Yes a clock following a geodesic will show the largest proper time and yes
I am making a big deal about the proper time not being the spacetime distance
because they're not even in compatible units, one is in seconds and
the other is in meters. It's like trying to subtract acres from
nanoseconds, it doesn't make any physical sense.


> >>You can never find a distance between anything by subtracting seconds
>> from meters, that would be gibberish, but you can subtract meters from
>> meters.
>
>

*>That's why the speed of light is now just a conversion factor.*
>

Just? The speed of light is *just* the bridge between two otherwise
incompatible quantities because you *just* can't subtract seconds from
meters! And it's *just* a fact that Google was right and you were wrong
when it said a geodesic was *"the shortest possible line between two points
on a sphere or other curved surface".*

>>Doesn't slow a clock down relative to what?
>
>
> * > It's a negative, John!  It doesn't slow down realtive to anything. *
>

Of course it does! If 2 clocks start out synchronized on the Earth and one
stays put but the other is put on a rocket and blasted away into space at
near the speed of light and then accelerated in the opposite direction so
it can return to Earth then the clocks will no longer be synchronized when
they meet again. So obviously *one clock must have slowed down relative to
the other, *or equivalently one clock must have sped up relative to the
other because that's what "unsynchronized" means.


> * > Ideal clocks in relativity are assumed to accurately measure proper
> time along their world line. *
>

And that's why I said "in Relativity, a clock never slows down relative to
an observer in the same reference frame"


> > *They never run slow or fast...they just follow different paths.*
>

But that's exactly what clocks slowing down or speeding up between events
means, following different paths through spacetime.


> > *You're one that referred to the clock being slowed down.  "Then one
> twin would encounter a intense gravitational field that the other twin did
> not and gravity will slow down a clock just like moving fast will."*
>

Yes and in that I was absolutely correct. When the clocks meet again after
one went on its rocket journey the previously synchronized clocks are now un
synchronized. Unsynchronized means showing different times, so during the
journey one clock *MUST* have run slower than the other.

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/1/2019 9:04 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:22 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


>> I hope you know the path yielding the longest proper time
duration is not the same as having the longest distance
through spacetime as time is just one dimension and spacetime
involves 4.


/> Proper time is the distance thru spacetime. /


No it is not. I gave the formula for the spacetime distance between 2 
events in my previous post, unless you intend to dispute this well 
established and uncontroversial formula the only logical conclusion 
one can make is that to calculate the spacetime distance between 2 
events occurring at different times AND different places you must make 
use of both time and space information. And because in that formula 
the distance in space is a positive term but the duration in time is a 
NEGATIVE term the larger the duration in time the smaller the 
spacetime distance.


That is also why the geometry of spacetime is Non-Euclidean, because 
of that negative value the Pythagorean theorem is not valid in 
spacetime. Euclid says the hypotenuse of a right triangle (h) is 
h^2=a^2 +b^2, but in spacetime h^2 = s^2 -(ct)^2   if s is the space 
distance and t is the time duration and c the speed of light. The 
minus sign in there means the larger the t is the smaller the h is, 
and h is the spacetime distance.


And for two spacelike events (as I specified) h^2 < 0  so you have made 
the interval along a world line, the proper time, imaginary.  Several 
times I pointed out that proper time uses a metric with signature (+ - - 
-).   You're making a big distinction between spacelike 'distance' and 
'proper time'.  But it's just muddling the point that the geodesic 
followed by a body is the longest interval.  Because of the (+ - - -) 
signature the extremal path is the longest, not the shortest.




And proper time doesn't even give you the correct units for spacetime 
distance. Time is in units of seconds but the formula makes it clear 
that the spacetime distance (h) is in meters; s is in meters and ct is 
in meters because c (the speed of light) is in meters/sec and t is in 
seconds.


> /A distance is always just one number/


Yes, and that number had better be in the correct units! You can never 
find a distance between anything by subtracting seconds from meters, 
that would be gibberish, but you can subtract meters from meters.


That's why the speed of light is now just a conversion factor.



>///(not dimension) however many dimensions the space has./


And you can not have a shortest distance between 2 points on a curved 
surface with just one dimension because you can't have a curved 
surface with just one dimension. And that's why Google was NOT wrong 
as you claimed when it said a geodesic was "/relating to or denoting 
the shortest possible line between two points on a sphere or other 
curved surface/". If the surface is Non-Euclidean the larger the 
proper time the smaller the spacetime distance.


/> Gravity doesn't "slow down a clock" it just changes the proper
distance.  Relativity always talks in terms of ideal clocks that
measure proper time and never "slow down"./


Doesn't slow a clock down relative to what?


It's a negative, John!  It doesn't slow down realtive to anything. Ideal 
clocks in relativity are assumed to accurately measure proper time along 
their world line.  They never run slow or fast...they just follow 
different paths.   You're one that referred to the clock being slowed 
down. /"Then one twin would encounter a intense gravitational field that 
the other twin did not and *gravity will slow down a clock just like 
moving fast will.* "/

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:22 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> I hope you know the path yielding the longest proper time duration is
>> not the same as having the longest distance through spacetime as time is
>> just one dimension and spacetime involves 4.
>
>
> * > Proper time is the distance thru spacetime. *
>

No it is not. I gave the formula for the spacetime distance between 2
events in my previous post, unless you intend to dispute this well
established and uncontroversial formula the only logical conclusion one can
make is that to calculate the spacetime distance between 2 events occurring
at different times AND different places you must make use of both time and
space information. And because in that formula the distance in space is a
positive term but the duration in time is a NEGATIVE term the larger the
duration in time the smaller the spacetime distance.

That is also why the geometry of spacetime is Non-Euclidean, because of
that negative value the Pythagorean theorem is not valid in spacetime.
Euclid says the hypotenuse of a right triangle (h) is h^2=a^2 + b^2, but in
spacetime h^2 = s^2 - (ct)^2   if s is the space distance and t is the time
duration and c the speed of light. The minus sign in there means the larger
the t is the smaller the h is, and h is the spacetime distance.

And proper time doesn't even give you the correct units for spacetime
distance. Time is in units of seconds but the formula makes it clear that
the spacetime distance (h) is in meters; s is in meters and ct is in meters
because c (the speed of light) is in meters/sec and t is in seconds.


> > *A distance is always just one number*
>

Yes, and that number had better be in the correct units! You can never find
a distance between anything by subtracting seconds from meters, that would
be gibberish, but you can subtract meters from meters.

> *(not dimension) however many dimensions the space has.*
>

And you can not have a shortest distance between 2 points on a curved
surface with just one dimension because you can't have a curved surface
with just one dimension. And that's why Google was NOT wrong as you claimed
when it said a geodesic was "*relating to or denoting the shortest possible
line between two points on a sphere or other curved surface*". If the
surface is Non-Euclidean the larger the proper time the smaller the
spacetime distance.


> *> Gravity doesn't "slow down a clock" it just changes the proper
> distance.  Relativity always talks in terms of ideal clocks that measure
> proper time and never "slow down".*
>

Doesn't slow a clock down relative to what? There is no absolute time in
Relativity, a clock never slows down relative to an observer in the same
reference frame but to an observer that is moving at a constant speed close
to the speed of light your clock is running slow, and to an observer
accelerating in a rocket at 10g (or equivalently standing on the surface of
a planet with a 10g gravitational field) your clock is running fast.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/31/2018 7:17 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:46 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


> /But you do know that the straightest path between events in
Minkowski spacetime
/

//
You do know don't you that Minkowski spaceis non-Euclidean because it 
treats time differently than the other 3 dimensions but it is not 
curved so it is useful in Special Relativity but not in General 
Relativity or anything involving gravity.


/> is the longest duration path don't you. /


And I hope you know the path yielding the longest proper time duration 
is not the same as having the longest distance through spacetime as 
time is just one dimension and spacetime involves 4.


Proper time is the distance thru spacetime.  A distance is always just 
one number (not dimension) however many dimensions the space has.


If r is the distance in space and c the speed of light then the square 
of the distance in spacetime between two events is  r^2-(ct)^2, so the 
largest possible t (proper time) will give smallest possible distance 
through spacetime.


> The Google definition seems not to consider mixed signature metrics.


Google said a geodesic is the shortest distance between 2 points on a 
curves surface, time is just one dimension and you can't have a curved 
surface with just one dimension.


Non sequitur.  I said the definition didn't consider spaces with 
signatures like (+ - - -).  I didn't say anything about limiting it to 
one dimension.




> in Minkowski space there is only one time-like geodesic that
connects any given pair of time-like separated events,


True but curved spacetime is not Minkowski space and you can have more 
than one one time-like geodesic connecting them.


You are just repeating what I wrote after the above, but you 
clipped:/This is not true in curved spacetime.  For example two 
different orbits of the Earth, both geodesics, can coincide at a pair of 
events. /




/> Even a twin paradox can be constructed this way by having the
traveling twin's velocity reversed by the gravity of massive body
far from the stay-home twin; which in GR is not a force./


Then one twin would encounter a intense gravitational field that the 
other twin did not and gravity will slow down a clock just like moving 
fast will.


Gravity doesn't "slow down a clock" it just changes the proper 
distance.   Relativity always talks in terms of ideal clocks that 
measure proper time and never "slow down".




> /What "Feynman's example"?/


I posted it a few days ago. it comes from "Surely you're joking Mr. 
Feynman" he posed this puzzle to an assistant of Einstein:


"Y/ou blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's a 
clock on the ground. The idea is that you have to be back when the 
clock on the ground says one hour has passed. Now you want it so 
that//when you come back, your clock is as far ahead as possible. 
According to Einstein, if you go very high, your clock will go faster, 
because the higher something is in a gravitational field, the faster 
its clock goes. But if you try to go too high, since you've only got 
an hour, you have to go so fast to get there that the speed slows 
yourclock down. So you can't go too high. The question is, exactly 
what program of speed and height should you make so that you get the 
maximum time on your clock?"/

/
/
/"This assistant of Einstein worked on it for quite a bit before he 
realized that the answer is the real motion of matter. If you shoot 
something up in a normal way, so that the time it takes the shell to 
go up and come down is an hour, that's the correct motion. It's the 
fundamental principle of Einstein's gravity--that is, what's called 
the "proper time" is at a maximum for the actual curve."/


OK.  I already replied to that: "It's an example of a geodesic being the 
longest path (in interval) between two events in 4-space."


Brent


/
/
John K Clark
/
/





--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:46 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> *But you do know that the straightest path between events in Minkowski
> spacetime *
>

You do know don't you that Minkowski space is non-Euclidean because it
treats time differently than the other 3 dimensions but it is not curved so
it is useful in Special Relativity but not in General Relativity or
anything involving gravity.

*> is the longest duration path don't you.  *


And I hope you know the path yielding the longest proper time duration is
not the same as having the longest distance through spacetime as time is
just one dimension and spacetime involves 4. If r is the distance in space
and c the speed of light then the square of the distance in spacetime
between two events is  r^2-(ct)^2, so the largest possible t (proper time)
will give smallest possible distance through spacetime.


> > The Google definition seems not to consider mixed signature metrics.


Google said a geodesic is the shortest distance between 2 points on a
curves surface, time is just one dimension and you can't have a curved
surface with just one dimension.


> > in Minkowski space there is only one time-like geodesic that connects
> any given pair of time-like separated events,


True but curved spacetime is not Minkowski space and you can have more than
one one time-like geodesic connecting them.


> * > Even a twin paradox can be constructed this way by having the
> traveling twin's velocity reversed by the gravity of massive body far from
> the stay-home twin; which in GR is not a force.*
>

Then one twin would encounter a intense gravitational field that the other
twin did not and gravity will slow down a clock just like moving fast will.

> *What "Feynman's example"?*


I posted it a few days ago. it comes from "Surely you're joking Mr.
Feynman" he posed this puzzle to an assistant of Einstein:

"Y*ou blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's
a clock on the ground. The idea is that you have to be back when
the clock on the ground says one hour has passed. Now you want it so
that **when
you come back, your clock is as far ahead as possible. According to
Einstein, if you go very high, your clock will go faster, because the
higher something is in a gravitational field, the faster its clock goes.
But if you try to go too high, since you've only got an hour, you have to
go so fast to get there that the speed slows your clock down. So you can't
go too high. The question is, exactly what program of speed and height
should you make so that you get the maximum time on your clock?"*

*"This assistant of Einstein worked on it for quite a bit before he
realized that the answer is the real motion of matter. If you shoot
something up in a normal way, so that the time it takes the shell to go up
and come down is an hour, that's the correct motion. It's the fundamental
principle of Einstein's gravity--that is, what's called the "proper time"
is at a maximum for the actual curve."*

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/31/2018 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 6:37 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


>>> /It's an example of a geodesic being the longest path (in
interval) between two events in 4-space./


>> I think you meant shortest path, there is no unique longest
path it can be made as long as you like.


/> No, I mean longest path. /


I just typed "define:geodesic" into Google and this is what I got:
/adjective/

1.
1.
Relating to or denoting the shortest possible line between two
points on a sphere or other curved surface.
2.

2. Another term for geodetic. 



But you do know that the straightest path between events in Minkowski 
spacetime is the longest duration path don't you.  The Google definition 
seems not to consider mixed signature metrics.


/> The stay-home twin experiences the longest duration between
departure and arrival of the traveling twin. /


Yes. Relativity says everything moves in a geodetic unless a force it 
acting on them, and if the traveling twin was moving close to the 
speed of light but eventually returned to where he started then a 
force must have acted on him.


This is not true in curved spacetime.  For example two different orbits 
of the Earth, both geodesics, can coincide at a pair of events.  They 
will measure different proper times between those events (twin paradox) 
even though neither experienced any force. Even a twin paradox can be 
constructed this way by having the traveling twin's velocity reversed by 
the gravity of massive body far from the stay-home twin; which in GR is 
not a force.



> The traveling twin measures a shorter interval because he takes a
non-geodesic path.


I agree, a force acted on the traveling twin so he took a non-geodesic 
path and experienced a shorter proper time between events than his 
brother who was on a geodesic. But in Feynman's example no force was 
acting on either clock , both were in a inertial frame or close to one 
assuming the clocks were small compared to the distance from the 
center of the Earth.


What "Feynman's example"?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Dec 2018, at 21:28, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/29/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 ...
 
 With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
 universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
 initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense 
 of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on 
 which universal machinery we talk about). 
 
 Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
 universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its 
 states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical 
 and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep 
 histories.
>>> 
>>> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
>>> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
>> 
>> You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not 
>> yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.
>> 
>> Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply 
>> wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no 
>> other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.
> 
> Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong
 
 Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, unlike 
 the materialist metaphysics.
 
 
 
> (2) Your argument is wrong
> 
 
 
 Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume this, 
 you have to find the mistake.
>>> 
>>> One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental" 
>>> implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that no 
>>> physical implementation is required at all. 
>> 
>> That is equivalent with the creationist critic of the theory of evolution. 
>> They could say that the mistake is in inferring from the possibility of 
>> “accidental” implementations of computations in a physical reality 
>> instantiating conscious thoughts that no God intervention if required at all.
>> 
>> The mistake done here by the creationist or the materialist  is in invoking 
>> an ontological commitment to avoid testing a simpler (shorter) theory which 
>> avoids that ontological commitment..
> 
> It's not a commitment.  It's an empirical observation.  


I don’t think so. Physicist measure numbers, and correlate them in extrapolated 
mathematical relation; with diverse possible interpretations (as QM illustrates 
well). An ontology always ask for some faith. 







> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Another is supposing that an "ideal machine" that knows/believes/proves 
>>> every theorem of arithmetic is a reasonable model of conscious thought.
>> 
>> 
>> It is not a model/theory of conscious thought. It is just that any sound 
>> digital machine looking inward discovers immediate indubitable (and thus 
>> knowable) truth which are non sharable,
> 
> If they are knowable, why aren't they sharable?  You seem to be trapped by 
> identifying know=provable.

? On the contrary I distinguish very precisely know and provable, given that 
know has become “provable-and-true”, which is equivalent in G*, but quite 
distinct from the machine points of view.

Personal consciousness is knowable, for example, but is not sharable per se. 
You need to be a good poet to approximate the sharing, and even this 
presupposes enough common experiences. 





> 
>> non provable and non rationally justifiable, which explains pretty well  the 
>> “conscious” experience, without any supplementary ontological commitment.
> 
> It's a bug not a feature when your minimalist ontology prevents your theory 
> from predicting anything (or less than everything).

Up to now, it works, where physicalism needs to invoke actual infinities, non 
computable phenomenon in exploitable by nature. It predicts better than 
physics, strictly speaking. Indeed, mechanism predicts physics itself, and 
explain why the numbers cannot avoid it, and this in a precise enough manner so 
that we can make the test. Note also that the arithmetical self-referential 
does explain the quanta, and the qualia, and why they look so different and 
obey different mathematics.

Materialism or physicalism still needs a “god” in the Aristotelian sense, for 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2018 3:04 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 4:10 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:


> /It's an example of a geodesic being the longest path (in
interval) between two events in 4-space.
/


I think you meant shortest path, there is no unique longest path it 
can be made as long as you like.


John K Clark


No, I mean longest path.  The stay-home twin experiences the longest 
duration between departure and arrival of the traveling twin.  The 
traveling twin measures a shorter interval because he takes a 
non-geodesic path.  Because the metric signature is (+ - - - ) having a 
longer spacial part means a shorter invariant interval (which is what a 
clock measures).


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 4:10 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> *It's an example of a geodesic being the longest path (in interval)
> between two events in 4-space.*
>

I think you meant shortest path, there is no unique longest path it can be
made as long as you like.

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2018 11:26 AM, John Clark wrote:
Richard Feynman had something to say about clocks and rickets in his 
book Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman, he posed this puzzle to a 
fellow physicist:


"Y/ou blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's a 
clock on the ground. The idea is that you have to be back when the 
clock on the ground says one hour has passed. Now you want it so 
that//when you come back, your clock is as far ahead as possible. 
According to Einstein, if you go very high, your clock will go faster, 
because the higher something is in a gravitational field, the   faster 
its clock goes. But if you try to go too high, since you've only got 
an hour, you have to go so fast to get there that the speed slows your 
clock down. So you can't go too high. The question is, exactly what 
program of speed and height should you make so that you get the 
maximum time on your clock?"/

/
/
/"This assistant of Einstein worked on it for quite a bit before he 
realized that the answer is the real motion of matter. If you shoot 
something up in a normal way, so that the time it takes the shell to 
go up and come down is an hour, that's the correct motion. It's the 
fundamental principle of Einstein's gravity--that is, what's called 
the "proper time" is at a maximum for the actual curve."/


It's an example of a geodesic being the longest path (in interval) 
between two events in 4-space.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/29/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


...

With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” 
aka universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent 
of the initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” 
in the sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory 
does not depend on which universal machinery we talk about).


Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of 
the universal machine on all computations going through (any) of 
its states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called 
geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness 
requires long and deep histories.


So what expectation has measure 1.0? Can you show that it 
includes conservation of energy-momentum for example?


You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is 
not yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.


Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is 
simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, 
there is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.


Of course there are other choices: (1) Mechanism is wrong


Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, 
unlike the materialist metaphysics.





(2) Your argument is wrong




Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume 
this, you have to find the mistake.


One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental" 
implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that 
no physical implementation is required at all.


That is equivalent with the creationist critic of the theory of 
evolution. They could say that the mistake is in inferring from the 
possibility of “accidental” implementations of computations in a 
physical reality instantiating conscious thoughts that no God 
intervention if required at all.


The mistake done here by the creationist or the materialist  is in 
invoking an ontological commitment to avoid testing a simpler 
(shorter) theory which avoids that ontological commitment..


It's not a commitment.  It's an empirical observation.








Another is supposing that an "ideal machine" that 
knows/believes/proves every theorem of arithmetic is a reasonable 
model of conscious thought.



It is not a model/theory of conscious thought. It is just that any 
sound digital machine looking inward discovers immediate indubitable 
(and thus knowable) truth which are non sharable,


If they are knowable, why aren't they sharable?  You seem to be trapped 
by identifying know=provable.


non provable and non rationally justifiable, which explains pretty 
well  the “conscious” experience, without any supplementary 
ontological commitment.


It's a bug not a feature when your minimalist ontology prevents your 
theory from predicting anything (or less than everything).


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

Richard Feynman had something to say about clocks and rickets in his book
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman, he posed this puzzle to a fellow
physicist:

"Y*ou blast off in a rocket which has a clock on board, and there's a clock
on the ground. The idea is that you have to be back when the clock on the
ground says one hour has passed. Now you want it so that **when you come
back, your clock is as far ahead as possible. According to Einstein, if you
go very high, your clock will go faster, because the higher something is in
a gravitational field, the   faster its clock goes. But if you try to go
too high, since you've only got an hour, you have to go so fast to get
there that the speed slows your clock down. So you can't go too high. The
question is, exactly what program of speed and height should you make so
that you get the maximum time on your clock?"*

*"This assistant of Einstein worked on it for quite a bit before he
realized that the answer is the real motion of matter. If you shoot
something up in a normal way, so that the time it takes the shell to go up
and come down is an hour, that's the correct motion. It's the fundamental
principle of Einstein's gravity--that is, what's called the "proper time"
is at a maximum for the actual curve."*

John K Clark

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 6:13:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2018, at 21:28, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> If some higher-order Gödelian arithmetical process is involved in some 
> sense in the making of consciousness, then it's matter that is doing it.
>
>
>
> I don’t see evidences for this, nor theoretical reason (other than the 
> materialist ontological commitment, which is better to avoid in metaphysics 
> when we apply the scientific method.
>
>
>
>
> Matter and Arithmetic are like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
>
>
> Arithmetic is far less mysterious than mind and matter. For matter, we can 
> say that modern physics has made it even more mysterious. If we want a 
> primitive matter notion, it cannot be boolean (like the Aristotelian) one, 
> and a non boolean primary matter is quite a bizarre notion. But with 
> mechanism, a non boolean primary matter is expected and explained from 
> elementary arithmetical proposition shared by al scientists.
>
> The idea is to start from what we agree on, adding as few assumptions as 
> possible, to explain the complicated happenings, and this in way which can 
> be tested.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

Are there numbers "all the way down"? Or is there stuff (something else) 
"down there"?

*Matter compilers* make stuff, not (numerical) simulations of stuff. From 
an "engineering" perspective, that distinction matters.

*Mechanochemistry at the Single Bond Limit: Towards "Deterministic 
Epitaxy" *

Philip Moriarty - University of Nottingham
- https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/people/philip.moriarty
Brigitte Nerlich - University of Nottingham
- 
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/expertiseguide/sociology-social-policy/professor-brigitte-nerlich.aspx

https://app.dimensions.ai/details/grant/grant.4889014

Abstract

*Can we manipulate atoms just like we control bits of information in a 
computer? Could we ever build a matter compiler - a device that positions 
atoms, one by one, to construct a macroscopic product like a table, a 
computer, or even a building? In other words, could we ultimately push 3D 
printing all the way down to the atomic level? This is the essence of the 
highly controversial "molecular manufacturing" concept put forward by Eric 
Drexler in the eighties, originally inspired by Richard Feynman's thoughts 
on the ultimate limits of miniaturisation back in the late fifties. 
Drexler's ideas were, and continue to be, widely critiqued and criticised 
by many (including the authors of this proposal) but at the core of his 
molecular manufacturing scheme is a demonstrably valid process: 
computer-controlled and atomically precise chemistry driven purely by 
mechanical force. This type of mechanochemistry is now implemented in the 
lab (and studied theoretically) by a small number of research groups across 
the world, including those involved in this proposal. Our core objective is 
a little less grandiose than the fabrication of a macroscopic or, indeed, 
microscopic object using single atom manipulation. Nonetheless, it is an 
exceptionally challenging goal: the fabrication of a 3D object -- a 
nanoparticle -- an atom at a time. ... *

- pt 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Dec 2018, at 21:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:18:53 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 19:05, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:12:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 01:07, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is not 333’s oddness timeless?
>>> 
>>> Category error.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On category error:
>>> 
>>> I've never understood "category error" [ 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake 
>>>  ]. (Some philosopher I 
>>> read about recently gave a talk on the non-existence of category errors. 
>>> Good.) 
>>> 
>>> Is 333's oddness timeless? is a perfectly reasonable question.
>>> 
>>> To the immaterialist, the answer could be "yes".
>>> To the materialist, the answer could not be "no”.
>> 
>> That makes sense only if the materialist describe how 333 depends on time. 
>> But then I suppose he has a different definition than the usual one, and 
>> that requires clarification.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> It all depends.
>>> 
>>> There is a type of dualists who say 333 is one category (nonphysical) and 
>>> time (as in spacetime) is in another category (physical), but this dualism 
>>> is just mixed-up confusion to me.
>> 
>> And to me to. But I guess you defends a materialist monism. That contradicts 
>> Mechanism.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Gilbert Ryle's initial rendition of "category error" (about mind) stands in 
>>> contradiction to Galen Strawson on that topic.
>> 
>> The problem with the materialist is that they need to make consciousness 
>> into an illusion, and that is already jeopardise by the Cartesian Cogito. As 
>> I said, it is easier to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious being 
>> (especially if he remembers its dream) than to explain the illusion of 
>> consciousness to a piece of matter. Now, once we work in the Digital 
>> Mechanist frame, things get clearer and deeper.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> But in 2019:
>> 
>> Out: Eliminative ("Mechanistic") Materialism
> 
> You use “mechanism” in his pre-Gödelian reductionist sense. After Gödel, 
> reductionism is simply refuted, even the reductionist conception of numbers 
> and machine, to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
>> In:Experiential Materialism
>> 
>> "I think we need to radically rethink our understanding of matter in order 
>> to explain consciousness,
> 
> 
> Sure. Mechanism attributes souls to "numbers-in-relations” and in a testable 
> way, as the laws of the observable are explained explicitly through them. 
> 
> And our understanding of matter is revised radically, as it becomes a product 
> of the universal differentiating consciousness of the universal (Turing) 
> numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> in something like the way Einstein radically rethought the nature of space 
>> and time.”
> 
> You can see Everett-Feynman generalising already Einstein on the quantum 
> reality, and Mechanism extends this idea on the whole arithmetical reality 
> (in which the Everett-Feynam part should appear, and seems to appear, as a 
> sort of border/projection.
> 
> No need of design, no need of designer, just the arithmetical reality as seen 
> by the universal numbers of measure one minus epsilon.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> - Philip Goff [ http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/ 
>>  ]
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If some higher-order Gödelian arithmetical process is involved in some sense 
> in the making of consciousness, then it's matter that is doing it.


I don’t see evidences for this, nor theoretical reason (other than the 
materialist ontological commitment, which is better to avoid in metaphysics 
when we apply the scientific method.



> 
> Matter and Arithmetic are like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

Arithmetic is far less mysterious than mind and matter. For matter, we can say 
that modern physics has made it even more mysterious. If we want a primitive 
matter notion, it cannot be boolean (like the Aristotelian) one, and a non 
boolean primary matter is quite a bizarre notion. But with mechanism, a non 
boolean primary matter is expected and explained from elementary arithmetical 
proposition shared by al scientists.

The idea is to start from what we agree on, adding as few assumptions as 
possible, to explain the complicated happenings, and this in way which can be 
tested.

Bruno




> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Dec 2018, at 00:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark > wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch > wrote:
>>> 
>>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using 
>>>  complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the 
>>>  same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
>>>  of the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>>>  produces a probability that we can measure in the physical world that 
>>>  is objective, provided  anything deserves that word; but it also 
>>>  yields something that is not deterministic.
>>> 
>>> >>> It is still deterministic. 
>>> 
>>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
>>> >>deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
>>> 
>>> > This is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
>>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at 
>>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of 
>>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact 
>>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get 
>>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>>  
>>> >>> Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just says 
>>> >>> that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each 
>>> >>> of which observed different outcomes.
>>> 
>>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, 
>>> >>but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger 
>>> >>equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave functions of these 
>>> >>2 systems: 
>>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it is 
>>> observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then 
>>> goes on for 2 seconds.
>>> 
>>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've 
>>> taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically 
>>> different probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron 
>>> after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree 
>>> over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and 
>>> the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those 
>>> two systems are NOT the same.
>>> 
>>> > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the 
>>> > measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the 
>>> > system [...]
>>> 
>>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be 
>>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the 
>>> square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the probability 
>>> of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect of the 
>>> system, but other than that things become controversial. Some people (the 
>>> shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is telling 
>>> us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave people) say 
>>> the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what that is. But 
>>> everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation is made 
>>> forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the Schrodinger 
>>> wave changes.
>>>  
>>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an 
>>> > experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory 
>>> > input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 
>>> > and 1).
>>> 
>>> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind 
>>> other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what 
>>> I believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other 
>>> people, including some very smart ones, 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
>> universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
>> initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense 
>> of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on 
>> which universal machinery we talk about). 
>> 
>> Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
>> universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. 
>> All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
>> historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
> 
> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
 
 You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not yet 
 energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.
 
 Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply 
 wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no other 
 choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.
>>> 
>>> Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong
>> 
>> Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, unlike the 
>> materialist metaphysics.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> (2) Your argument is wrong
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume this, 
>> you have to find the mistake.
> 
> One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental" 
> implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that no 
> physical implementation is required at all. 

That is equivalent with the creationist critic of the theory of evolution. They 
could say that the mistake is in inferring from the possibility of “accidental” 
implementations of computations in a physical reality instantiating conscious 
thoughts that no God intervention if required at all.

The mistake done here by the creationist or the materialist  is in invoking an 
ontological commitment to avoid testing a simpler (shorter) theory which avoids 
that ontological commitment..






> Another is supposing that an "ideal machine" that knows/believes/proves every 
> theorem of arithmetic is a reasonable model of conscious thought.


It is not a model/theory of conscious thought. It is just that any sound 
digital machine looking inward discovers immediate indubitable (and thus 
knowable) truth which are non sharable, non provable and non rationally 
justifiable, which explains pretty well  the “conscious” experience, without 
any supplementary ontological commitment.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 9:50 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:09 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch 
>>
>>
>> Clock desycnhronization is a different phenomenon and has a different
>> cause and explanation than time dilation.
>>
>> Because of the relativity of simultaneity in SR, clock synchronization is
>> not a global phenomenon -- it depends on the way in which the clocks are
>> synchronized. So clocks synchronized by one method in one frame will not
>> necessarily be synchronized in different frames. The time read on such
>> clocks is local only, so will they will not necessarily agree when they are
>> brought together.
>>
>
> You would agree that two atomic clocks in the same reference frame, 100
> meters away synchronized by a flash of light exactly in between them are
> synchronized, right?
>
> Now assume there are two clocks each in both the front and rear of the
> rocket, as well as a 5th clock exactly in the middle.  Roughly this is as
> follows:
>
>
> Clock1---Clock3---Clock4
> Clock2Clock5
>
> Clocks 2, 3, and 5 are atomic clocks, which count the number of vibrations
> of some atom per second, and increment the nanosecond counter displayed on
> the clock face when it has seen enough vibrations of that atom.  Clocks 1
> and 4 are not atomic clocks, but are mere counters.  Every time clock 3
> measures a vibration of the atom, it sends a light pulse to a sensor in
> clock 1 and clock 4.  Clock 1 and clock 4 count these light pulses, and
> when there have been enough light pulses to represent a nanosecond, they
> too increment the nanosecond counter on the clock face.
>
> At some time = 0, the rocket is at rest, and clock1 and clock4 are set to
> 0, then clock 3 turns on and sends the light pulses and clocks 1 and 4
> begin counting.  The moment clock1 counts 1, clock2 is activated and sets
> its counter to 1, and thereafter counts the vibrations of its own atom
> under measurement. Likewise, the moment clock 4 measures its first light
> flash, clock 5 is activated and begins counting its own atom's vibrations.
>
> Do you agree at this point, all 5 clocks are synchronized, within their
> own reference frame?
>
> Now what happens from an external frame as this rocket accelerates to 0.8
> c in the direction facing rightwards? Outside this frame, one will see the
> light flashes take slightly longer to reach clock4 which is moving away
> from the light source of clock3, while clock1 will begin receiving the
> light flashes slightly faster the absolute number or difference in timings
> is proportional to both the length separating the clocks, as well as the
> absolute speed of the rocket. This results in a permanent discrepancy
> between clocks 1 and 4.
>
> Now what of clocks 2 and 5? Do they not remain in complete agreement with
> their local "light flash counting clocks" throughout this process?
>
> What happens when the rocket comes to a rest, from the perspective of the
> external at-rest observer, do the clocks not all resynchronize?
>
> Can not everything in this experiment be explained in terms of special
> relativity?
>

No, not if the rocket changes velocity at some point. That brings GR into
the picture. But I think I disagree overall: the relativity of simultaneity
in SR means that clocks that are synchronized in some way will not
necessarily be synchronized in some other frame. So rockets synchronized at
the ends of a moving rocket will not necessarily be synchronized when
brought together in some other frame. There are some similarities with the
twin paradox here -- clocks disagree because they have followed different
spacetime paths.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:09 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
>
> Clock desycnhronization is a different phenomenon and has a different
> cause and explanation than time dilation.
>
> Because of the relativity of simultaneity in SR, clock synchronization is
> not a global phenomenon -- it depends on the way in which the clocks are
> synchronized. So clocks synchronized by one method in one frame will not
> necessarily be synchronized in different frames. The time read on such
> clocks is local only, so will they will not necessarily agree when they are
> brought together.
>

You would agree that two atomic clocks in the same reference frame, 100
meters away synchronized by a flash of light exactly in between them are
synchronized, right?

Now assume there are two clocks each in both the front and rear of the
rocket, as well as a 5th clock exactly in the middle.  Roughly this is as
follows:


Clock1---Clock3---Clock4
Clock2Clock5

Clocks 2, 3, and 5 are atomic clocks, which count the number of vibrations
of some atom per second, and increment the nanosecond counter displayed on
the clock face when it has seen enough vibrations of that atom.  Clocks 1
and 4 are not atomic clocks, but are mere counters.  Every time clock 3
measures a vibration of the atom, it sends a light pulse to a sensor in
clock 1 and clock 4.  Clock 1 and clock 4 count these light pulses, and
when there have been enough light pulses to represent a nanosecond, they
too increment the nanosecond counter on the clock face.

At some time = 0, the rocket is at rest, and clock1 and clock4 are set to
0, then clock 3 turns on and sends the light pulses and clocks 1 and 4
begin counting.  The moment clock1 counts 1, clock2 is activated and sets
its counter to 1, and thereafter counts the vibrations of its own atom
under measurement. Likewise, the moment clock 4 measures its first light
flash, clock 5 is activated and begins counting its own atom's vibrations.

Do you agree at this point, all 5 clocks are synchronized, within their own
reference frame?

Now what happens from an external frame as this rocket accelerates to 0.8 c
in the direction facing rightwards? Outside this frame, one will see the
light flashes take slightly longer to reach clock4 which is moving away
from the light source of clock3, while clock1 will begin receiving the
light flashes slightly faster the absolute number or difference in timings
is proportional to both the length separating the clocks, as well as the
absolute speed of the rocket. This results in a permanent discrepancy
between clocks 1 and 4.

Now what of clocks 2 and 5? Do they not remain in complete agreement with
their local "light flash counting clocks" throughout this process?

What happens when the rocket comes to a rest, from the perspective of the
external at-rest observer, do the clocks not all resynchronize?

Can not everything in this experiment be explained in terms of special
relativity?

Jason


> The effects of time dilation are dependent on relative speed. But whether
> I bring the clocks together moving one of them at either 1 meter/second or
> 1 mm per year, they will still appear synchronized to the person on the
> ground.  You can calculate the time dilation effects of moving at 1 meter
> per second over the ship's length of 100 meters, it won't account for the
> 266.85 nanoseconds of clock descynrhonization that the observer on the
> ground sees.
>
> The effect is more related to length contraction than anything. If you see
> a length contracted object, you are simultaneously seeing "older" and
> "newer" parts of that object, the rear part of the object will be newer in
> time, while the forward part of the object will be the older part of the
> object.  Consider the observer on the ground watching the rocket gradually
> slow.  The entire part of the rocket is slowing at the exact same rate, but
> by the time it stops both clocks will again be perfectly synchronized.
> This resynchronization cannot be explained in terms of time dilation or
> different relative velocities.
>
> There are no "older" or "newer" parts of an object, because there is no
> such thing as an absolute time. Time is a purely local phenomenon:
> apparent clock rates are affected by relative motions.
>
> Because of general relativistic effects, slowing the rocket will cause the
> clock rates at the front and rear of the rocket to be different, so they
> will not remain synchronized, even if that concept made any sense in the
> first place.
>
>
> However, it can be explained in terms of objects in spacetime being
> 4-dimensional, and viewing acceleration or deceleration as the rotation of
> those 4-dimensional objects. (which also explains the phenomenon of length
> contraction)
>
>
> 4-dimensional space-time is a construct that sometimes has heuristic
> value, but it cannot be said to be the 'explanation' for 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


Clock desycnhronization is a different phenomenon and has a different 
cause and explanation than time dilation.


Because of the relativity of simultaneity in SR, clock synchronization 
is not a global phenomenon -- it depends on the way in which the clocks 
are synchronized. So clocks synchronized by one method in one frame will 
not necessarily be synchronized in different frames. The time read on 
such clocks is local only, so will they will not necessarily agree when 
they are brought together.


The effects of time dilation are dependent on relative speed. But 
whether I bring the clocks together moving one of them at either 1 
meter/second or 1 mm per year, they will still appear synchronized to 
the person on the ground.  You can calculate the time dilation effects 
of moving at 1 meter per second over the ship's length of 100 meters, 
it won't account for the 266.85 nanoseconds of clock descynrhonization 
that the observer on the ground sees.


The effect is more related to length contraction than anything. If you 
see a length contracted object, you are simultaneously seeing "older" 
and "newer" parts of that object, the rear part of the object will be 
newer in time, while the forward part of the object will be the older 
part of the object.  Consider the observer on the ground watching the 
rocket gradually slow.  The entire part of the rocket is slowing at 
the exact same rate, but by the time it stops both clocks will again 
be perfectly synchronized.  This resynchronization cannot be explained 
in terms of time dilation or different relative velocities.


There are no "older" or "newer" parts of an object, because there is no 
such thing as an absolute time. Time is a purely local phenomenon:  
apparent clock rates are affected by relative motions.


Because of general relativistic effects, slowing the rocket will cause 
the clock rates at the front and rear of the rocket to be different, so 
they will not remain synchronized, even if that concept made any sense 
in the first place.



However, it can be explained in terms of objects in spacetime being 
4-dimensional, and viewing acceleration or deceleration as the 
rotation of those 4-dimensional objects. (which also explains the 
phenomenon of length contraction)



4-dimensional space-time is a construct that sometimes has heuristic 
value, but it cannot be said to be the 'explanation' for anything. The 
only explanations that SR gives are in terms of the effects of Lorentz 
transformations. When we introduce general relativity, we see that 
Lorentz symmetry is only ever a local effect, so 4-dim space-time 
becomes insignificant.


Bruce

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:03 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch 
 wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> >
>> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and
>> rear
>> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>>
>> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise
>> they
>> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity
>> at
>> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is
>> frame
>> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at
>> the
>> same time.
>>
>>
> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and
> the length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it
> could be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time
> given by a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just
> showing that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
> length through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an
> object's length will partially extend through space and partially extend
> through time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will 
> see
> a corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>
> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with
> the two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated 
> to
> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>
> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the 
> dimension
> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
> front or back of the ship.
>

 I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same
 velocity there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I
 thought you were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can
 differ then, but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
 inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same,
 regardless of the distance apart.


>>> As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
>>> clocks will not appear to be in sync.
>>>
>>
>> That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change in
>> clock rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the point of view
>> of someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the front and rear of the
>> coasting rocket will be travelling at the same velocity relative to him. So
>> they will both appear to  be going either faster or slower at exactly the
>> same rate, depending on the direction of the relative motion.
>>
>
> Then what is the meaning of this problem on page 42:
> https://www.relativity.li/uploads/pdf/English/Epstein_en.pdf
>
> Two rockets fly past each other at 0.6 • c. A measures the length of the
> other rocket B to be 40 m. What is the rest length of the rocket B, and how
> much are the clocks at the tip and at the end of rocket B for A
> desynchronized, given that they are synchronized for B? And which of the
> two clocks is running fast for A?
>
>
> More details:
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html
>
>
> I have not read Epstein. I know that some people think highly of this book
> as a teaching aid, but Epstein's diagrammatic methods are good only in so
> far as they agree with the correct Lorentz transformations. For your
> example of clocks as the front and rear of the rocket, the Lorentz formulae
> for time dilation depend only on the relative velocity of clock and
> observer, not on the 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote:


On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> How can this be? The rocket is a rigid
structure, the front and rear
> clocks accelerate at the same rate.

First, there are no rigid objects in relativity
theory.  Otherwise they
could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there
is no simultaneity at
different places, like the front and rear of the
rocket.  So it is frame
dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin
to accelerate at the
same time.


The level of clock desynchronization is proportional
to the speed and the length of the rocket.   That it
is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could be two
rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same
time given by a signal initiated from immediately
between them. This is just showing that length
contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
length through space time is constant, but when moving
through space, an object's length will partially
extend through space and partially extend through
time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts
you will see a corresponding increase in the reach
through time. (this is unrelated to acceleration
effects, or rigidness).

If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would
disappear with the two separate rockets, but it
doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to acceleration
rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be
unrelated to the distance separating the clocks but
it's not.  Here is an example of what I am talking
about, just to be clear.

If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it
will length contract to 60 meters, but will also
extend 80 meters through the dimension of time.  The
total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
However, clocks that were initially synchronized
between the fore and aft parts of the rocket are
separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds. If
you take the clock from the front to the back you will
see it speed up and resynchronize with the clock in
the back when brought into proximity with the clock in
the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the
rear towards the front it will slow until it
resynchronizes with the clock in the front by the time
it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
carrying the clock through the time dimension as you
move it towards the front or back of the ship.


I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at
the same velocity there is no difference in clock rate
between them. That's why I thought you were talking about
the acceleration phase -- clock rates can differ then, but
if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates
are the same, regardless of the distance apart.


As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length
contracted, the clocks will not appear to be in sync.


That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change
in clock rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the
point of view of someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the
front and rear of the coasting rocket will be travelling at the
same velocity relative to him. So they will both appear to  be
going either faster or slower at exactly the same rate, depending
on the direction of the relative motion.


Then what is the meaning of this problem on page 42: 
https://www.relativity.li/uploads/pdf/English/Epstein_en.pdf


Two rockets fly past each other at 0.6 • c. A measures the 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:54:41 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The SE remains always correct. It is only if you make the other 
>>> “universe" disappearing that the SE is not correct.
>>>
>>
>> *BS. You utterly fail to understand the point of the horse race example. 
>> The SE doesn't extend to other worlds. *
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The SE is what define the other worlds, or superposition terms, and the 
>> SE describes them literally. The double linearity (tensor product and 
>> evolution) makes the SE describing the prediction relatively to each 
>> branch. The collapse of the wave is a non linear process (if it is seen as 
>> a process) violating the SE.
>>
>
> *You insist that everything that's possible to happen, must happen. 
> Nothing to support this idea but your bias. In a horse race, you are 
> demanding that universes are created in which each horse wins. Do you 
> really think this is how the universe functions? As for the SWE, you've 
> imposed your will on where it applies, and appeal to the non linearity of 
> the collapse process to justify your preference. But there ARE non linear 
> processes in nature. So your claim is poorly based. AG* 
>
>>
>> Many-worlds (or many-histories, …) is basically just the SWE, without 
>> collapse. Everett theory is just Copenhagen minus the idea of a physical 
>> collapse.
>>
>> *Those who claim otherwise are adding something to QM which suits their 
>> fancy; that everything that's possible to happen, must happen.*
>>
>> Only with a special probability, and relatively to the observer. 
>> Yes, that “everything” needs to be realise, or we don’t get the 
>> interference.
>>
>
> *I don't see why interference depends on everything happening. The many 
> universes you claim come into existence when a single outcome occurs, are 
> disjoint. So it's hardly obvious why the interference observed over many 
> outcomes Iin our universe, depends on these other universes. AG *
>
>>
>>


I great book title for quantum reality ("Timeless Reality" was the title of 
Victor Stenger's book) would be 

   "Don't Make Waves".

The wave function is one of the worst ideas to ever enter physics.

- pt


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function 
>> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
>> in the 
>> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the 
>> square of 
>> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>> produces 
>> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
>> objective, 
>> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
>> that is 
>> not deterministic.
>>
>
> >>> *It is still deterministic. *
>

 >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function 
 is deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 

>>>
>>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>>
>>
>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to 
>> get 
>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle 
>> at 
>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root 
>> of 
>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
>> exact 
>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you 
>> get 
>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>  
>>
>>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it 
> just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
> observers, 
> each of which observed different outcomes.*
>

 >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is 
 controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the 
 Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
 functions 
 of these 2 systems: 
 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it 
 is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X 
 and then goes on for 2 seconds.

 The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after 
 you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find 
 radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find 
 the 
 electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
 people 
 disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the 
 mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger 
 equation 
 describes in those two systems are NOT the same.

>>>
>>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter 
>>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you 
>>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>>
>>
>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
>> be 
>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do 
>> know the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us 
>> the probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular 
>> aspect of the system, but other than that things become controversial. 
>> Some 
>> people (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the 
>> math is telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot 
>> Wave people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree 
>> about 
>> what that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an 
>> observation is made forget about what the math may mean the very 
>> mathematics of the Schrodinger wave changes.
>>  
>>
>>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you 
>>> simulated an 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>
> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise
> they
> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is
> frame
> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at
> the
> same time.
>
>
 The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and
 the length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it
 could be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time
 given by a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just
 showing that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
 length through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an
 object's length will partially extend through space and partially extend
 through time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see
 a corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
 acceleration effects, or rigidness).

 If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with
 the two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
 acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
 the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
 what I am talking about, just to be clear.

 If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
 contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
 of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
 However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
 parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
 If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
 and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
 with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
 towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
 the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
 carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
 front or back of the ship.

>>>
>>> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same
>>> velocity there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I
>>> thought you were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can
>>> differ then, but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
>>> inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same,
>>> regardless of the distance apart.
>>>
>>>
>> As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
>> clocks will not appear to be in sync.
>>
>
> That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change in clock
> rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the point of view of
> someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the front and rear of the
> coasting rocket will be travelling at the same velocity relative to him. So
> they will both appear to  be going either faster or slower at exactly the
> same rate, depending on the direction of the relative motion.
>

Then what is the meaning of this problem on page 42:
https://www.relativity.li/uploads/pdf/English/Epstein_en.pdf

Two rockets fly past each other at 0.6 • c. A measures the length of the
other rocket B to be 40 m. What is the rest length of the rocket B, and how
much are the clocks at the tip and at the end of rocket B for A
desynchronized, given that they are synchronized for B? And which of the
two clocks is running fast for A?


More details:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html

Jason


>
> I think you have been totally confused by your ideas about everything
> going at a constant speed through either space or time. I thought you had a
> basic confusion when you appended those rather silly diagrams a post or so
> ago. You have to go back to the basic equations of the Lorentz
> transformation to get these things straight.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>

-- 
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 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 4:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 >
 > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
 > clocks accelerate at the same rate.

 First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
 could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
 different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is
 frame
 dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
 same time.


>>> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and
>>> the length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it
>>> could be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time
>>> given by a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just
>>> showing that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The
>>> length through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an
>>> object's length will partially extend through space and partially extend
>>> through time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see
>>> a corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
>>> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>>>
>>> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with
>>> the two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
>>> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
>>> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
>>> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>>>
>>> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
>>> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
>>> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
>>> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
>>> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
>>> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
>>> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
>>> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
>>> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
>>> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
>>> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
>>> front or back of the ship.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same
>> velocity there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I
>> thought you were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can
>> differ then, but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving
>> inertially, and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same,
>> regardless of the distance apart.
>>
>>
> As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
> clocks will not appear to be in sync.
>

That is factually wrong. The special relativistic apparent change in clock
rates depends only on the relative motion, so from the point of view of
someone at rest on the ground, the clocks at the front and rear of the
coasting rocket will be travelling at the same velocity relative to him. So
they will both appear to  be going either faster or slower at exactly the
same rate, depending on the direction of the relative motion.

I think you have been totally confused by your ideas about everything going
at a constant speed through either space or time. I thought you had a basic
confusion when you appended those rather silly diagrams a post or so ago.
You have to go back to the basic equations of the Lorentz transformation to
get these things straight.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/24/2018 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


...

With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of 
the initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in 
the sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does 
not depend on which universal machinery we talk about).


Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of 
the universal machine on all computations going through (any) of 
its states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called 
geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires 
long and deep histories.


So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
conservation of energy-momentum for example?


You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is 
not yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.


Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is 
simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, 
there is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.


Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong


Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, 
unlike the materialist metaphysics.





(2) Your argument is wrong




Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume 
this, you have to find the mistake.


One mistake is in inferring from the possibility of "accidental" 
implementations of computations instantiating conscious thoughts that no 
physical implementation is required at all.  Another is supposing that 
an "ideal machine" that knows/believes/proves every theorem of 
arithmetic is a reasonable model of conscious thought.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> >
>>> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
>>> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>>>
>>> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
>>> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
>>> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is frame
>>> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>>
>> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and the
>> length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could
>> be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time given by
>> a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just showing
>> that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The length
>> through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an object's
>> length will partially extend through space and partially extend through
>> time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see a
>> corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
>> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>>
>> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with the
>> two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
>> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
>> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
>> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>>
>> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
>> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
>> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
>> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
>> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
>> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
>> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
>> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
>> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
>> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
>> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
>> front or back of the ship.
>>
>
> I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same velocity
> there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I thought you
> were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can differ then,
> but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving inertially,
> and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same, regardless of
> the distance apart.
>
>
As seen by someone who perceives the rocket to be length contracted, the
clocks will not appear to be in sync.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 01:45, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> 
>> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz 
>> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
> 
> This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that physics is 
> already in a large part derivable from simple invariance principles.
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Do you recall which of his books this is? ( 
> https://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA 
>  )
> 


Hi Jason,

I was alluding to “The comprehensible cosmos”: this one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591024242/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

A very good one!

Bruno



> Jason
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 ...
 
 With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
 universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
 initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of 
 theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which 
 universal machinery we talk about). 
 
 Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
 universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. 
 All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
 historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
>>> 
>>> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
>>> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
>> 
>> You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not yet 
>> energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.
>> 
>> Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply 
>> wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no other 
>> choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.
> 
> Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong

Sure. That is what we can test. It fits well the fact until now, unlike the 
materialist metaphysics.



> (2) Your argument is wrong
> 


Of course, that remains always a possibility, but you cannot assume this, you 
have to find the mistake.

Bruno




> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed 
 into classical logic,
>>> 
>>> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted the 
>>> logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your theory, 
>>> but would have had no effect on physics.
>> 
>> If the theory incorrectly predict something, it has to be abandoned. Your 
>> way of phrasing things seems strange to me. The notion of incorrect 
>> prediction is fuzzy. If mechanism incorrectly predict that an electron 
>> weight is one kilogram, then, we correct the prediction, and if we find it 
>> is 2 kilos, we still abandon the theory (unless get some further 
>> explanation, like the presence of hyper bosons with negative masses happing 
>> to keep up the appearances …
> 
> But you don't predict anything like that.  You assume that elements 
> implementing computations could be substituted for parts of the human brain 
> with noticeable effect.  So that's one thing that could be wrong.  It might 
> be that you have to use atoms and molecules.  The rest of your agrument, that 
> cosmic rays could intervene to repair brain damage also seems doubtful.  And 
> your reliance on quantum mechanics may well be undermined by the quantum 
> theory of gravity.  Your theory doesn't predict anything and it only 
> retrodicts a few aspects of QM.
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> I have no theory. Digital Mechanism is already implicit in Darwin theory of 
>> evolution, and molecular biology has confirmed the (relative) digital aspect 
>> of it. 
>> 
>> All hamiltonian use in physics are computable, and QM preserves 
>> computability, so non mechanism is speculating on appeal to magical 
>> thinking, without evidences.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that 
 case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories 
 possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. 
 Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the 
 measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non 
 trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities 
 are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
 leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that 
 “observable” view point.
>>> 
>>> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd say 
>>> are trivial.
>> 
>> Not at all, that gives a quantum logic for the yes-no experiences, and if it 
>> is the right type, you will get a Gleason theorem (as it should be with 
>> Mechanism), and derives the other probabilities from this.
>> 
>> Anyway, no other theories works today, I think. Physics works, because it 
>> makes a listing assumption which is just non sensical with digital 
>> mechanism. You need infinite amount of energy/information to localise a soul 
>> in a body when you assume mechanism.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine 
 (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural 
 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark > wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch > wrote:
>> 
>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using 
>>  complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the 
>>  same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
>>  of the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>>  produces a probability that we can measure in the physical world that 
>>  is objective, provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields 
>>  something that is not deterministic.
>> 
>> >>> It is still deterministic. 
>> 
>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
>> >>deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
>> 
>> > This is incorrect.
>> 
>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at 
>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of 
>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact 
>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get 
>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>  
>> >>> Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just says 
>> >>> that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each 
>> >>> of which observed different outcomes.
>> 
>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, 
>> >>but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger 
>> >>equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave functions of these 2 
>> >>systems: 
>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it is 
>> observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then 
>> goes on for 2 seconds.
>> 
>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've 
>> taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically 
>> different probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron after 
>> 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree over 
>> quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and the 
>> mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those two 
>> systems are NOT the same.
>> 
>> > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the 
>> > measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the 
>> > system [...]
>> 
>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be 
>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the 
>> square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the probability 
>> of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect of the 
>> system, but other than that things become controversial. Some people (the 
>> shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is telling 
>> us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave people) say the 
>> math is telling us more than that but disagree about what that is. But 
>> everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation is made forget 
>> about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the Schrodinger wave 
>> changes.
>>  
>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an 
>> > experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory 
>> > input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 
>> > and 1).
>> 
>> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind 
>> other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what I 
>> believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other 
>> people, including some very smart ones, disagree so we could be wrong.
>> 
>>  
>> Such people disbelieve in the Schrodinger equation.
>> 
>> Suppose (courtesy of Bruce) the SE represents a horse race with the 
>> probabilities varying wrt time. What's your view of the status 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:45:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM > wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
> 
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. We 
> know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there will 
> be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation of 
> theorems.
> 
> Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG
> 
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you referred 
> to are broad principles, not axioms.
> 
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic.
> 
> Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG
> 
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that most 
> logicians use that term.
> 
> An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG
> 
> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just a 
> formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.
> 
> IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
> obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
> Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
> evolves. Give me a break. AG 
> 
> The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude 
> would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and definition are 
> not obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be more clear, and to 
> prevent the use of metaphysical biases.
> 
> When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but 
> when doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t,
> 
> Why not? It's a good hypothesis or axiom that correctly predicts the behavior 
> of the wf (for non relativistic QM). What would you replace it with? AG


It does it well FAPP, but to relate it to the first person experience, it uses 
an identity brain-mind which is invalid when we assume mechanism. So physics 
uses an implicit reference to an ontological commitment, involving infinities 
for which we have no evidence, and which would contradicts most known theories, 
from evolution to QM.

It is the point of the UDA reasoning. I do not claim this is entirely obvious. 
Physics works well, but it cannot predict anything if we assume mechanism, the 
laws must be derived in a certain way so at to get the correct type of 
supervenience on mind on computations allowed by computer science/arithmetic.

With mechanism, we must use any Turing complete theory, minus induction axioms, 
and minus infinity axioms. We must derive the SWE (assuming it physically 
correct) from the statistics on all computations. Invoking a “real matter” does 
not work better than invoking “God” or something. It just does not work. If you 
predict an eclipse, you still cannot predict you will feel to see an eclipse, 
as you would need to assume absence of Boltzman Brain in the universe … and in 
arithmetic, but that is not possible: they are there.

Bruno




> 
> and this is just an example, so it helps to use the terms with they standard 
> meaning in science, and not with imprecise meanings which usually only hides 
> the (open) problems.
> 
> 
> 
> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics.
> 
> Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure "for 
> physics". AG 
> 
> They failed,
> 
> It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG 
> 
> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
> abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
> 
> Most physicists are not confused as you allege.
> 
> I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or with 
> physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The 
> Aristotelian 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> >
>> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
>> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>>
>> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
>> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
>> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is frame
>> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
>> same time.
>>
>>
> The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and the
> length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could
> be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time given by
> a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just showing
> that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The length
> through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an object's
> length will partially extend through space and partially extend through
> time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see a
> corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
> acceleration effects, or rigidness).
>
> If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with the
> two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
> acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
> the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
> what I am talking about, just to be clear.
>
> If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length
> contract to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension
> of time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).
> However, clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft
> parts of the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.
> If you take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up
> and resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity
> with the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
> towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
> the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
> carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
> front or back of the ship.
>

I don't understand this. If the two clocks are moving at the same velocity
there is no difference in clock rate between them. That's why I thought you
were talking about the acceleration phase -- clock rates can differ then,
but if the two clocks are at either end of the rocket moving inertially,
and at rest wrt each other, then their rates are the same, regardless of
the distance apart.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:06 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
> > clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>
> First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they
> could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at
> different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is frame
> dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the
> same time.
>
>
The level of clock desynchronization is proportional to the speed and the
length of the rocket.   That it is one rocket doesn't even matter, it could
be two rockets, which both separately accelerate at the same time given by
a signal initiated from immediately between them.  This is just showing
that length contraction is only a spatial length contraction. The length
through space time is  constant, but when moving through space, an object's
length will partially extend through space and partially extend through
time.  To the extent that an object's length contracts you will see a
corresponding increase in the reach through time.  (this is unrelated to
acceleration effects, or rigidness).

If it were related to rigidness, then the effect would disappear with the
two separate rockets, but it doesn't. Similarly, if it were related to
acceleration rates, rather than absolute velocity, it would be unrelated to
the distance separating the clocks but it's not.  Here is an example of
what I am talking about, just to be clear.

If a 100 meter rocket accelerates to 80% of c, then it will length contract
to 60 meters, but will also extend 80 meters through the dimension of
time.  The total length remains 100 meters (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 = 1).  However,
clocks that were initially synchronized between the fore and aft parts of
the rocket are separated by (80 meters / c) = 266.85 nanoseconds.  If you
take the clock from the front to the back you will see it speed up and
resynchronize with the clock in the back when brought into proximity with
the clock in the rear, likewise if you bring the clock from the rear
towards the front it will slow until it resynchronizes with the clock in
the front by the time it is brought into proximity with it.  You are
carrying the clock through the time dimension as you move it towards the
front or back of the ship.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/23/2018 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear 
clocks accelerate at the same rate.


First, there are no rigid objects in relativity theory.  Otherwise they 
could be used for  FTL signaling.  Second, there is no simultaneity at 
different places, like the front and rear of the rocket.  So it is frame 
dependent whether the two ends of the rocket begin to accelerate at the 
same time.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:44 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/23/2018 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz
>> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
>>
>>
>> This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that
>> physics is already in a large part derivable from simple invariance
>> principles.
>>
>>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Do you recall which of his books this is? (
> https://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA )
>
>
> The Comprehensible Cosmos.
>

Thanks Brent, and Russell (and Bruno for mentioning it).  I will read it.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/23/2018 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote:




The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants. But how do Lorentz
transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?


This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that
physics is already in a large part derivable from simple
invariance principles.


Hi Bruno,

Do you recall which of his books this is? ( 
https://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA )


The Comprehensible Cosmos.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Jason Resch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 That's what I thought you wanted to conclude.  But it doesn't follow.
 The specious present is just a mathematical construct and has no physical
 significance.  It says no more than that one can make a 4D map.

>>>
>>> So do you believe that presentism is compatible under relativity?  If
>>> one puts two synchronized clocks (one at the front, and one at the read) of
>>> a rocket, and then the rocket accelerates, the rocket attains a tilted
>>> direction in space time, and while the rocket remains at a positive
>>> velocity, the rear-ward clock will be "ahead in time" of the forward
>>> clock.  The rocket is reaching through the dimension of time which explains
>>> the discrepancy of the clocks.  When the rocket comes to rest, the rocket
>>> will have "0" reach through the proper time dimension, and the clocks will
>>> again appear synchronized.  If something can have an extent through the
>>> proper time dimension, how can this be compatible with presentism?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your example does not require any such conclusion. If you have a clock at
>> the front of an accelerating rocket, and one at the rear, the rear of the
>> rocket has to accelerate at a slightly greater rate or else the rocket will
>> fall apart.
>>
>
> How can this be? The rocket is a rigid structure, the front and rear
> clocks accelerate at the same rate.
>

No, that is not the case. In an accelerating rocket, the front and rear
accelerate at different rates. This is an important property of the Rindler
frame for accelerating systems. Greg Egan has an interesting an informative
tutorial on this (as well as other things):

http://http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Rindler/RindlerHorizon.html


In the greater acceleration field, the rear clock will run slower than the
>> clock at the nose. When the rocket comes to rest again, the two clocks will
>> have travelled different non-geodesic paths, so they will no longer be
>> synchronized the rear clock will show a smaller elapsed proper time than
>> the forward clock.
>>
>
> They will again be synchronized when the rocket comes to a rest.
>

No. That travel different spacetime paths, so the proper time along each
trajectory (clock from) is different. Note that this is specifically for
accelerated frames, not inertial frames, which I think you might have in
mind.


What is it, exactly, that you want to conclude from this? Time is what is
>> measured on a clock, and clocks at different relative velocities, or
>> different acceleration fields, will record different times. So the only
>> reasonably objective "present" is that read on  your local clock -- other
>> clocks may well record different "presents".
>>
>>
> The idea of time as a dimension separate from the spatial dimensions
> explains clock-descynchronization after acceleration (and
> re-synchronization when coming to rest), length contraction, time dilation,
> etc.  If an object can reach through time (just as it reach through space)
> then you have clear evidence of the reality of multiple points in time.
>

This just seems like simple Lorentz transformation stuff. That does not
require a block view of space-time. Your diagrams are not actually very
helpful.

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 07:45:54PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> 
> This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that physics
> is already in a large part derivable from simple invariance principles.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Do you recall which of his books this is? ( https://www.amazon.com/
> Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA )

Bzzzt...

The Comprehensible Cosmos.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>> That's what I thought you wanted to conclude.  But it doesn't follow.
>> The specious present is just a mathematical construct and has no physical
>> significance.  It says no more than that one can make a 4D map.
>>
>
> So do you believe that presentism is compatible under relativity?  If one
> puts two synchronized clocks (one at the front, and one at the read) of a
> rocket, and then the rocket accelerates, the rocket attains a tilted
> direction in space time, and while the rocket remains at a positive
> velocity, the rear-ward clock will be "ahead in time" of the forward
> clock.  The rocket is reaching through the dimension of time which explains
> the discrepancy of the clocks.  When the rocket comes to rest, the rocket
> will have "0" reach through the proper time dimension, and the clocks will
> again appear synchronized.  If something can have an extent through the
> proper time dimension, how can this be compatible with presentism?
>


Your example does not require any such conclusion. If you have a clock at
the front of an accelerating rocket, and one at the rear, the rear of the
rocket has to accelerate at a slightly greater rate or else the rocket will
fall apart. In the greater acceleration field, the rear clock will run
slower than the clock at the nose. When the rocket comes to rest again, the
two clocks will have travelled different non-geodesic paths, so they will
no longer be synchronized the rear clock will show a smaller elapsed proper
time than the forward clock.

What is it, exactly, that you want to conclude from this? Time is what is
measured on a clock, and clocks at different relative velocities, or
different acceleration fields, will record different times. So the only
reasonably objective "present" is that read on  your local clock -- other
clocks may well record different "presents".

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/23/2018 4:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/22/2018 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that
 > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for
 > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they
 can
 > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not).

 They can define it in words, but can they define it physically.


>>> What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to their
>>> direction through spacetime?
>>>
>>>
>>> That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant
>>> galaxy Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their "direction
>>> through spacetime" constant over billions of years?
>>>
>>
>> If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event
>> arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the
>> observer.
>>
>>
>> You mean it could have been considered simultaneous if the observer had
>> known it at the time and the observer had not changed motion in the
>> intervening years.
>>
>>
>> If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their
>> interpretation of what constitutes the present.
>>
>>
>> So as I get up and walk to the garage, whole galaxies of events switch
>> from my past to my future. What is the physical significance of this?
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> Nothing, beyond showing we exist in a 4d spacetime with no objective
> present (a block time).
>
>
> That's what I thought you wanted to conclude.  But it doesn't follow.  The
> specious present is just a mathematical construct and has no physical
> significance.  It says no more than that one can make a 4D map.
>

So do you believe that presentism is compatible under relativity?  If one
puts two synchronized clocks (one at the front, and one at the read) of a
rocket, and then the rocket accelerates, the rocket attains a tilted
direction in space time, and while the rocket remains at a positive
velocity, the rear-ward clock will be "ahead in time" of the forward
clock.  The rocket is reaching through the dimension of time which explains
the discrepancy of the clocks.  When the rocket comes to rest, the rocket
will have "0" reach through the proper time dimension, and the clocks will
again appear synchronized.  If something can have an extent through the
proper time dimension, how can this be compatible with presentism?

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/23/2018 4:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sunday, December 23, 2018, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/22/2018 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I am not advocating any global reference frame, just
mentioning that
> for a particular observe, they can define a present
that works for
> them (in their own reference frame). From their point
of view they can
> consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are
not).

They can define it in words, but can they define it
physically.


What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to
their direction through spacetime?


That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in
distant galaxy Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z? 
Is their "direction through spacetime" constant over billions
of years?


If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that
event arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous
with the observer.


You mean it could have been considered simultaneous if the
observer had known it at the time and the observer had not changed
motion in the intervening years.



If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change
their interpretation of what constitutes the present.


So as I get up and walk to the garage, whole galaxies of events
switch from my past to my future. What is the physical
significance of this?


Brent



Nothing, beyond showing we exist in a 4d spacetime with no objective 
present (a block time).


That's what I thought you wanted to conclude.  But it doesn't follow.  
The specious present is just a mathematical construct and has no 
physical significance.  It says no more than that one can make a 4D map.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz
> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
>
>
> This is explained in Vic Stenger’s book, in a way which shows that physics
> is already in a large part derivable from simple invariance principles.
>
>
Hi Bruno,

Do you recall which of his books this is? (
https://www.amazon.com/Victor-J.-Stenger/e/B000APH2GA )

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:45:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. 
> We know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there 
> will be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation 
> of theorems.
>
>
> *Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG*
>
>
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you 
> referred to are broad principles, not axioms.
>
>
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic. 
>
>
> *Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG*
>
>
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that 
> most logicians use that term.
>
>
> *An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG*
>
>
> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just 
> a formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.
>
>
>
> *IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
> obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
> Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
> evolves. Give me a break. AG *
>
>
> The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific 
> attitude would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and 
> definition are not obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be 
> more clear, and to prevent the use of metaphysical biases.
>
> When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but 
> when doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t,
>

*Why not? It's a good hypothesis or axiom that correctly predicts the 
behavior of the wf (for non relativistic QM). What would you replace it 
with? AG*

and this is just an example, so it helps to use the terms with they 
> standard meaning in science, and not with imprecise meanings which usually 
> only hides the (open) problems.
>
>
>
> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics. 
>
>
>
> *Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure 
> "for physics". AG *
>
> They failed,
>
>
>
> *It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG *
>
>
> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
> abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
>
>
> *Most physicists are not confused as you allege. *
>
>
> I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or 
> with physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The 
> Aristotelian metaphysics is wrong. Now, some people are good in physics, 
> but are not even aware that the confusion between physics and metaphysics 
> ïs* the main axiom of the Aristotelian theology (with or without an 
> important or trivial notion of first god, matter being the second god, but 
> still the main one for the aristotelians (believer in primary matter, or 
> physicalists).
>
> The problem is not physics, but physicalism; when we assume the Mechanist 
> hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>
> *IMO, this line of discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG *
>
>
>
> No. It is fact that the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of 
> scientific theology: is there a universe existing fundamentally, in need to 
> be assumed or in need of faith (like the Aristotelian think), or is the 
> physical universe a symptom of a deeper non physical reality (like 
> Pythagorus, Plato, …).
>
> Physics is neutral on this; but physicalism is the Aristotelian 
> theological axiom. No problem, unless it used as a dogma for not testing 
> simpler theories.
>
> Mechanism works. Physicalism do not, at least with Mechanism.
>
> Mechanism explains why there is an apparent universe, but also why its 
> mathematics split into a sharable theory of sharable 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/23/2018 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


...

With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the 
sense of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not 
depend on which universal machinery we talk about).


Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its 
states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called 
geographical and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires 
long and deep histories.


So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
conservation of energy-momentum for example?


You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not 
yet energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.


Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is 
simply wrong with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there 
is no other choice, unless you know a better theory, of course.


Of course there are other choices: (1)  Mechanism is wrong (2) Your 
argument is wrong


Brent










It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have 
collapsed into classical logic,


No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly 
predicted the logic of physics collapsed. Which would have been bad 
for  your theory, but would have had no effect on physics.


If the theory incorrectly predict something, it has to be abandoned. 
Your way of phrasing things seems strange to me. The notion of 
incorrect prediction is fuzzy. If mechanism incorrectly predict that 
an electron weight is one kilogram, then, we correct the prediction, 
and if we find it is 2 kilos, we still abandon the theory (unless get 
some further explanation, like the presence of hyper bosons with 
negative masses happing to keep up the appearances …


But you don't predict anything like that.  You assume that elements 
implementing computations could be substituted for parts of the human 
brain with noticeable effect.  So that's one thing that could be wrong.  
It might be that you have to use atoms and molecules. The rest of your 
agrument, that cosmic rays could intervene to repair brain damage also 
seems doubtful.  And your reliance on quantum mechanics may well be 
undermined by the quantum theory of gravity.  Your theory doesn't 
predict anything and it only retrodicts a few aspects of QM.


Brent



I have no theory. Digital Mechanism is already implicit in Darwin 
theory of evolution, and molecular biology has confirmed the 
(relative) digital aspect of it.


All hamiltonian use in physics are computable, and QM preserves 
computability, so non mechanism is speculating on appeal to magical 
thinking, without evidences.







for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in 
that case there would be a infinite “landscape” of 
geographies/histories possible, and the laws of physics would be 
trivial somehow, that is empty. Thanks to incompleteness the logic 
of physics (that is, the logic of the measure one on the sigma_1 
sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non trivial logic 
quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities are not 
trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from 
that “observable” view point.


But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which 
I'd say are trivial.


Not at all, that gives a quantum logic for the yes-no experiences, and 
if it is the right type, you will get a Gleason theorem (as it should 
be with Mechanism), and derives the other probabilities from this.


Anyway, no other theories works today, I think. Physics works, because 
it makes a listing assumption which is just non sensical with digital 
mechanism. You need infinite amount of energy/information to localise 
a soul in a body when you assume mechanism.









The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) 
machine (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first 
person plural indeterminacy on all relative computations.


That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false 
(assuming that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, 
where we are just lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all 
computations”


But what does it mean to "sum on all computations”?


UDA gives the intuitive meaning, with the UD pictures for the true 
sigma_1 sentences.


AUDA gives the mathematics of the measure one, and how to proceed from 
that, if you are interested in metaphysics (nothing to do with physics 
a priori: to use metaphysics for doing physics, is like is like using 
the LARC to taste a pizza).

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch  
> wrote:
>
>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function 
> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
> in the 
> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
> of 
> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
> produces 
> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
> objective, 
> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
> that is 
> not deterministic.
>

 >>> *It is still deterministic. *

>>>
>>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
>>> deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
>>>
>>
>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>
>
> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle 
> at 
> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root 
> of 
> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
> exact 
> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get 
> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
> probabilities not certainties. 
>  
>
>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it 
 just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
 observers, 
 each of which observed different outcomes.*

>>>
>>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is 
>>> controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the 
>>> Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
>>> functions 
>>> of these 2 systems: 
>>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it 
>>> is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and 
>>> then goes on for 2 seconds.
>>>
>>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after 
>>> you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find 
>>> radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find the 
>>> electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
>>> people 
>>> disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the 
>>> mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation 
>>> describes in those two systems are NOT the same.
>>>
>>
>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter 
>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you 
>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>
>
> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
> be 
> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know 
> the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the 
> probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular 
> aspect 
> of the system, but other than that things become controversial. Some 
> people 
> (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is 
> telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave 
> people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what 
> that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an 
> observation 
> is made forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the 
> Schrodinger 
> wave changes.
>  
>
>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you 
>> simulated an experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in 
>> as 
>> sensory input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed 
>> state (0 and 1).
>>
>
> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any 
> mind other than 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:18:53 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2018, at 19:05, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:12:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 01:07, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is not 333’s oddness timeless?
>>>
>>>
>>> Category error.
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> On category error:
>>
>> I've never understood "category error" [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake ]. (Some philosopher I 
>> read about recently gave a talk on the non-existence of category errors. 
>> Good.) 
>>
>> *Is 333's oddness timeless? *is a perfectly reasonable question.
>>
>> To the immaterialist, the answer could be "yes".
>> To the materialist, the answer could not be "no”.
>>
>>
>> That makes sense only if the materialist describe how 333 depends on 
>> time. But then I suppose he has a different definition than the usual one, 
>> and that requires clarification.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It all depends.
>>
>> There is a type of dualists who say 333 is one category (nonphysical) and 
>> time (as in spacetime) is in another category (physical), but this dualism 
>> is just mixed-up confusion to me.
>>
>>
>> And to me to. But I guess you defends a materialist monism. That 
>> contradicts Mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gilbert Ryle's initial rendition of "category error" (about mind) stands 
>> in contradiction to Galen Strawson on that topic.
>>
>>
>> The problem with the materialist is that they need to make consciousness 
>> into an illusion, and that is already jeopardise by the Cartesian Cogito. 
>> As I said, it is easier to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious 
>> being (especially if he remembers its dream) than to explain the illusion 
>> of consciousness to a piece of matter. Now, once we work in the Digital 
>> Mechanist frame, things get clearer and deeper.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> But in 2019:
>
> Out: Eliminative ("Mechanistic") Materialism
>
>
> You use “mechanism” in his pre-Gödelian reductionist sense. After Gödel, 
> reductionism is simply refuted, even the reductionist conception of numbers 
> and machine, to begin with.
>
>
>
> In:Experiential Materialism
>
> "I think we need to radically rethink *our understanding of matter *in 
> order to explain consciousness, 
>
>
>
> Sure. Mechanism attributes souls to "numbers-in-relations” and in a 
> testable way, as the laws of the observable are explained explicitly 
> through them. 
>
> And our understanding of matter is revised radically, as it becomes a 
> product of the universal differentiating consciousness of the universal 
> (Turing) numbers.
>
>
>
>
> in something like the way Einstein radically rethought the nature of space 
> and time.”
>
>
> You can see Everett-Feynman generalising already Einstein on the quantum 
> reality, and Mechanism extends this idea on the whole arithmetical reality 
> (in which the Everett-Feynam part should appear, and seems to appear, as a 
> sort of border/projection.
>
> No need of design, no need of designer, just the arithmetical reality as 
> seen by the universal numbers of measure one minus epsilon.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> - Philip Goff [ http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/ ]
>
>


If some higher-order Gödelian arithmetical process is involved in some 
sense in the making of consciousness, then it's matter that is doing it.

Matter and Arithmetic are like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

- pt




-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 10:45:35 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM  wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. 
>> We know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there 
>> will be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation 
>> of theorems.
>>
>>
>> *Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
>> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG*
>>
>>
>> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you 
>> referred to are broad principles, not axioms.
>>
>>
>> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic. 
>>
>>
>> *Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
>> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
>> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
>> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG*
>>
>>
>> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that 
>> most logicians use that term.
>>
>>
>> *An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG*
>>
>>
>> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is 
>> just a formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a 
>> priori.
>>
>
>
> *IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
> obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
> Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
> evolves. Give me a break. AG *
>
>
> The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific 
> attitude would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and 
> definition are not obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be 
> more clear, and to prevent the use of metaphysical biases.
>
> When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but 
> when doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t, and this is just an example, so 
> it helps to use the terms with they standard meaning in science, and not 
> with imprecise meanings which usually only hides the (open) problems.
>
>
>
> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
>> logician sense for physics. 
>>
>>
>>
>> *Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure 
>> "for physics". AG *
>>
>> They failed,
>>
>>
>>
>> *It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
>> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG *
>>
>>
>> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still 
>> not abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
>> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
>> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
>>
>
> *Most physicists are not confused as you allege. *
>
>
> I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or 
> with physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The 
> Aristotelian metaphysics is wrong. Now, some people are good in physics, 
> but are not even aware that the confusion between physics and metaphysics 
> ïs* the main axiom of the Aristotelian theology (with or without an 
> important or trivial notion of first god, matter being the second god, but 
> still the main one for the aristotelians (believer in primary matter, or 
> physicalists).
>
> The problem is not physics, but physicalism; when we assume the Mechanist 
> hypothesis.
>
>
>
>
>
> *IMO, this line of discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG *
>
>
>
> No. It is fact that the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of 
> scientific theology: is there a universe existing fundamentally, in need to 
> be assumed or in need of faith (like the Aristotelian think), or is the 
> physical universe a symptom of a deeper non physical reality (like 
> Pythagorus, Plato, …).
>
> Physics is neutral on this; but physicalism is the Aristotelian 
> theological axiom. No problem, unless it used as a dogma for not testing 
> simpler theories.
>
> Mechanism works. Physicalism do not, at least with Mechanism.
>
> Mechanism explains why there is an apparent universe, but also why its 
> mathematics split into a sharable theory of sharable quanta, and a 
> partially sharable theory of non sharable quanta and 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:20, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka universal 
>> machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the initial theory 
>> (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of theoretical 
>> computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which universal 
>> machinery we talk about). 
>> 
>> Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
>> universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. All 
>> the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
>> historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
> 
> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
> 
>> 
>> It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed 
>> into classical logic,
> 
> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted the 
> logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your theory, but 
> would have had no effect on physics.
> 
>> for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that 
>> case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories 
>> possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. 
>> Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the 
>> measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non 
>> trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities 
>> are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
>> leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that 
>> “observable” view point.
> 
> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd say 
> are trivial.
> 
>> 
>> The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine (in 
>> the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural 
>> indeterminacy on all relative computations. 
>> 
>> That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false (assuming 
>> that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, where we are just 
>> lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all computations”
> 
> But what does it mean to "sum on all computations"?
> 
>> with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions.
> 
> What is an observation in these computations?
> 
>> If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the normal 
>> (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to prevent we got 
>> the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, and which requires an 
>> infinite work on the par of the liar).
>> 
>> If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical constant coming from the 
>> semantics of the “material hypostases” (the S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* logics), then 
>> it is part of the laws. If the Planck constant is shown to be not derivable 
>> from them, then it is “geographical”, and some region of the 
>> “multi-multi-verse” might have a different one.
> 
> That's just saying either my theory applies to X, or X is an exception.
> 
>> 
>> The quantum seems to be the digital seen from inside. Mechanism saves the 
>> quantum and symmetries from being contingent geographies. The laws of 
>> physics are laws, indeed, mathematical laws derivable from the mathematics 
>> of the universal (Gödel-Löbian) machines. 
>> 
>> Number theory might suggest shortcut toward physics, and explain why group 
>> theory plays a so big role in physics, and why it seems the unitary group 
>> imposes itself and how this is related to a measure one on a universal 
>> Turing structure. The particles are group invariants, so that light help to 
>> get the bosons and the fermions. 
> 
> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz 
> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
> 
> It's all just burble, Brent. He has no idea how to get any useful results 
> from any of this…….

You would have study the papers, you would know that it is hard to give a more 
refutable theory than Mechanism.

I recall and insist that you are the one, who like Clarck, invoke you 
ontological commitment, to evacuate a problem, and not testing a simple and 
general theory, which is not mine (it is already in Descartes, and even in 
antic text, just made mathematical by the Church Turing thesis).

Just study and make specific critics, but it would be nice you could argue 
instead of mocking the theories which put some doubt on the faith in primitive 
Aristotelian matter. 

Physics works, but only by abstracting itself from the first person experience. 
I see Aristotle’s materialism as a brilliant simplifications, but even with 
contemporary physics, we see that it leads to 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:20, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka universal 
>> machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the initial theory 
>> (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of theoretical 
>> computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which universal 
>> machinery we talk about). 
>> 
>> Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
>> universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. All 
>> the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
>> historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
> 
> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
> 
>> 
>> It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed 
>> into classical logic,
> 
> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted the 
> logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your theory, but 
> would have had no effect on physics.
> 
>> for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that 
>> case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories 
>> possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. 
>> Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the 
>> measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non 
>> trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities 
>> are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
>> leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that 
>> “observable” view point.
> 
> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd say 
> are trivial.
> 
>> 
>> The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine (in 
>> the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural 
>> indeterminacy on all relative computations. 
>> 
>> That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false (assuming 
>> that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, where we are just 
>> lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all computations”
> 
> But what does it mean to "sum on all computations"?
> 
>> with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions.
> 
> What is an observation in these computations?
> 
>> If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the normal 
>> (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to prevent we got 
>> the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, and which requires an 
>> infinite work on the par of the liar).
>> 
>> If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical constant coming from the 
>> semantics of the “material hypostases” (the S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* logics), then 
>> it is part of the laws. If the Planck constant is shown to be not derivable 
>> from them, then it is “geographical”, and some region of the 
>> “multi-multi-verse” might have a different one.
> 
> That's just saying either my theory applies to X, or X is an exception.
> 
>> 
>> The quantum seems to be the digital seen from inside. Mechanism saves the 
>> quantum and symmetries from being contingent geographies. The laws of 
>> physics are laws, indeed, mathematical laws derivable from the mathematics 
>> of the universal (Gödel-Löbian) machines. 
>> 
>> Number theory might suggest shortcut toward physics, and explain why group 
>> theory plays a so big role in physics, and why it seems the unitary group 
>> imposes itself and how this is related to a measure one on a universal 
>> Turing structure. The particles are group invariants, so that light help to 
>> get the bosons and the fermions. 
> 
> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz 
> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
> 
> It's all just burble, Brent. He has no idea how to get any useful results 
> from any of this…….

This means that you have not study any of my papers. You remark is as much 
gratuitous than ad hominem.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 23:08, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka universal 
>> machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the initial theory 
>> (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of theoretical 
>> computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which universal 
>> machinery we talk about). 
>> 
>> Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
>> universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states. All 
>> the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or 
>> historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
> 
> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
> conservation of energy-momentum for example?

You should revise the basics. The answer is no of course. There is not yet 
energy, physical time, … It is not even on the horizon.

Soling the mind body is not simple. But physics as metaphysics is simply wrong 
with mechanism, so to solve the mind body problem, there is no other choice, 
unless you know a better theory, of course.




> 
>> 
>> It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed 
>> into classical logic,
> 
> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted the 
> logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your theory, but 
> would have had no effect on physics.

If the theory incorrectly predict something, it has to be abandoned. Your way 
of phrasing things seems strange to me. The notion of incorrect prediction is 
fuzzy. If mechanism incorrectly predict that an electron weight is one 
kilogram, then, we correct the prediction, and if we find it is 2 kilos, we 
still abandon the theory (unless get some further explanation, like the 
presence of hyper bosons with negative masses happing to keep up the 
appearances …

I have no theory. Digital Mechanism is already implicit in Darwin theory of 
evolution, and molecular biology has confirmed the (relative) digital aspect of 
it. 

All hamiltonian use in physics are computable, and QM preserves computability, 
so non mechanism is speculating on appeal to magical thinking, without 
evidences.




> 
>> for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that 
>> case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories 
>> possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty. 
>> Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the 
>> measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non 
>> trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities 
>> are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the 
>> leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that 
>> “observable” view point.
> 
> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd say 
> are trivial.

Not at all, that gives a quantum logic for the yes-no experiences, and if it is 
the right type, you will get a Gleason theorem (as it should be with 
Mechanism), and derives the other probabilities from this.

Anyway, no other theories works today, I think. Physics works, because it makes 
a listing assumption which is just non sensical with digital mechanism. You 
need infinite amount of energy/information to localise a soul in a body when 
you assume mechanism.




> 
>> 
>> The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine (in 
>> the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural 
>> indeterminacy on all relative computations. 
>> 
>> That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false (assuming 
>> that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, where we are just 
>> lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all computations”
> 
> But what does it mean to "sum on all computations”?

UDA gives the intuitive meaning, with the UD pictures for the true sigma_1 
sentences. 

AUDA gives the mathematics of the measure one, and how to proceed from that, if 
you are interested in metaphysics (nothing to do with physics a priori: to use 
metaphysics for doing physics, is like is like using the LARC to taste a pizza).



> 
>> with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions.
> 
> What is an observation in these computations?

It receive an input, like seeing Washington, instead of Moscow, or reading 4 
instead of 5. It is a local measurement, usually kept in some memory for 
further comparisons.




> 
>> If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the normal 
>> (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to prevent we got 
>> the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, and which requires an 
>> infinite work on the par of the liar).
>> 
>> If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 22:36, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/22/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:03 PM Jason Resch >> > wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:05 PM Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jason Resch >> > wrote:
>>> 1. It is a prediction of eternal inflation and string theory.
>>> 
>>> String theory and its "landscape" are very speculative, and unlikely to 
>>> have any relation to the real world -- there is no evidence that string 
>>> theory is even a coherent theory! Eternal inflation, although popular, is 
>>> only one possibility for inflation, and even inflationary theory itself is 
>>> not well-established science.
>>> 
>>> I agree they are speculative, but they are on the side many many universes.
>>> Meanwhile there is no evidence for "the only universe that exists is the 
>>> one I can see".
>>> 
>>> The universe we see is the only one for which we have any concrete 
>>> evidence, and that evidence is indubitable.
>> 
>> That is of course a strong evidence for a physical reality, but unless we 
>> buy the Aristotelian theology, “seeing” is not an evidence for a 
>> metaphysical reality. 
> 
> That's sort of redefining what is meant by "reality”.

Yes, that is the point of scientific metaphysics or theology. If God appears to 
not be omnipotent, we change the definition, like if Earth is not flat we adopt 
the new theory.

Expect “reality” to defeat all theories and all definitions, but still, with 
luck, being at least less and less wrong.





> 
>> 
>> I think the whole problem is here:  a confusion for the evidence for physics 
>> with an evidence for a metaphysics. This has worked for 1500 years, only by 
>> terror, violence, and then habits, and the constant hiding of the 
>> (mind-body) problem under the rug (notably through “fairy tales”).
> 
> Physics is the evidence for metaphysics, i.e. metaphysics is about physics, 
> it seeks to explain why the world, including physics, is what it is.

Physics is as much an evidence for Aristotle than Plato, and its remarkable use 
of mathematics is an evidence for Plato. If string theory is correct, the 
reason why photon have no mass is related to the distribution of the prime 
numbers (!).

Metaphysics is not about physics, although it has relation with it. To identify 
physics and metaphysics *is* the Aristotelian move. It equates God with a 
primitively material/physical universe. 

It is bit like saying that one universal number win on all the other. That is 
not excluded, and may be the physical laws are a quantum universal dovetailing, 
but even if that is the case, to benefit of the G/G* separation (and get the 
distinction qualia/quanta), we have to derive that special “physical” universal 
number from self-reference.

Bruno





> 
> Brent
>> 
>> Physics is a wonderful science, but to make physics systematically, without 
>> argument nor evidence,  into a metaphysics is a form of “modern” 
>> charlatanism, when made consciously, and still a form of obscurantism when 
>> done by ignorance. With science, doubts are mandatory.
>> 
>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 13:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:53:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 05:44, Jason Resch > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:28 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:11 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:49 AM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> Do you believe other locations in space exist?
>> 
>> They exist, but there is no sense in which they are simultaneous with my 
>> existence.
>> 
>> There are certain senses in which you could, but I mostly agree (as they are 
>> not objective).
>>  
>> They exist because events at other locations in my past light cone can 
>> affect me, and I can affect events at other locations in my future light 
>> cone.
>> 
>> Okay, no problem with this.
>>  
>> Do you believe other locations in time exist?
>> 
>> I believe that I have a past, and will have a future, but I do not believe 
>> that these exist in my present. Such an idea is clearly a linguistic 
>> confusion.
>> 
>> I agree.
>>  
>> (I answer yes to both questions, that is all I mean by block time -- that 
>> there is no privileged part of space time blessed with the property of 
>> existence).
>> 
>> The present is all that you can know exists. All else is idle speculation.
>> 
>> But you just said there is no such thing as the present (since there is no 
>> objective notion of simultaneity)
>> 
>> I have never said that there is no such thing as the present. All I have 
>> said is that the notion of a space-like hyper-surface of simultaneity is not 
>> an objective notion.
>> 
>> Okay I agree with this.  I happen to take this as evidence that the "passage 
>> of time" is also not an objective notion.  What do you think about the 
>> passage of time, is it purely a subjective notion in your view?
>>  
>> The print moment exists now for ev very one of us individually. 
>> 
>> Of course, you can construct imaginary theories in which unicorns, fairies, 
>> and Hogwarts Castle exist, but you would not have any evidence for any of 
>> these.
>> 
>> You just said you have evidence for the existence of objects in your past 
>> light cone.  Why presume that they would disappear from existence?  What is 
>> the motivation/justification for such an idea?
>> 
>> I have no evidence that they exist now, since all I am currently aware of is 
>> the record of their past existence as it is present to me now. The evidence 
>> is that they existed in the past. Why is that not sufficient? I tend not to 
>> believe in things, like fairies, for which I have no current evidence.
>> 
>> This seems to be a trend that explains all aspects of your philosophy.  For 
>> example, rejecting many-worlds, rejecting other universes, rejecting other 
>> points in time, rejecting mathematical objects. It's based purely on what 
>> you can see.  It is a theory of minimizing the number of objects in reality. 
>> But to me this is not a correct application of Occam, which was about 
>> simplifying theories by reducing their unnecessary assumptions, rather than 
>> reducing the ontologies of those theories.
>> 
>> So by lobbing off the assumption that some points in the past stop existing, 
>> you get a larger universe, more points in spacetime exist (but this is 
>> simpler, as you don't have to add a theory of how different events come into 
>> or out of existence), or with many-worlds, if you drop the collapse 
>> postulate, you get the same predictions, and a simpler theory (but a huge 
>> number of unseen histories).  With this different philosophy/value system I 
>> don't think we will ever agree on what makes for a better theory, for in all 
>> these cases that we disagree, it comes down to my preference for a simpler 
>> theory, and your preference for a simpler ontology.
> 
> I would say that with Mechanism we get both a simple ontology (just 0, 1, 2, 
> …) and a simple theory, just the two SK axioms, or the very elementary RA. 
> Yet, we get a extremely rich phenomenology, unboundedly complex with sharable 
> and non sharable truth, with infinitely many histories and cosmos/multivers, 
> etc, and with many persons and their experiences (no risk to sacrifice souls 
> and consciousness).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arithmetical entities cannot have real (unsimulated*) experiences. Material 
> entities can.


Why?

If you are sure of this, you can’t be serious.

Bruno


> 
> 
> * cf. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsimulated_sex ]
> 
> -pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 13:40, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:42:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The universe we see is the only one for which we have any concrete evidence, 
>> and that evidence is indubitable.
> 
> That is of course a strong evidence for a physical reality, but unless we buy 
> the Aristotelian theology, “seeing” is not an evidence for a metaphysical 
> reality. 
> 
> I think the whole problem is here:  a confusion for the evidence for physics 
> with an evidence for a metaphysics. This has worked for 1500 years, only by 
> terror, violence, and then habits, and the constant hiding of the (mind-body) 
> problem under the rug (notably through “fairy tales”).
> 
> Physics is a wonderful science, but to make physics systematically, without 
> argument nor evidence,  into a metaphysics is a form of “modern” 
> charlatanism, when made consciously, and still a form of obscurantism when 
> done by ignorance. With science, doubts are mandatory.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Physics (a collection of "accepted" formulated [in mathematical language] 
> theories - the Standard Model, General Relativity - and "pending" ones - 
> string theory, cosmic inflation, loop quantum gravity...) is a type of 
> fictionalism. But is a different "genre" of fiction than mathematics.
> 
> Fictions, Inference, and Realism
> Mauricio Suárez
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5013/1/Fictions%2C_Inference%2C_and_Realism.pdf
> 
> 
> Abstract: It is often assumed without argument that fictionalism in the 
> philosophy of science contradicts scientific realism. This paper is a 
> critical analysis of this assumption. The kind of fictionalism that is at 
> present discussed in philosophy of science is characterized, and 
> distinguished from fictionalism in other areas. A distinction is then drawn 
> between forms of fictional representation, and two competing accounts of 
> fiction in science are discussed. I then outline explicitly what I take to be 
> the argument for the incompatibility of scientific realism with fictionalism. 
> I argue that some of its premises are unwarranted, and are moreover 
> questionable from a fictionalist perspective. The conclusion is that 
> fictionalism is neutral in the realism-antirealism debate, pulling neither in 
> favor nor against scientific realism.


That confirms my felling that fictionalism will not get something new here. 

All theologies are the fiction from the point of view of they antipodes 
ontologies.

For a monist materialist, mind/consciousness is fiction.

For a monist idealist, matter is fiction.

Fictionalism is just a negative way to present some ontology, it seems to me. 
It is “your god is not my god”.

Bruno





> 
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark > wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch > wrote:
> 
>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using 
>  complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the 
>  same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square of 
>  the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>  produces a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
>  objective, provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields 
>  something that is not deterministic.
> 
> >>> It is still deterministic. 
> 
> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
> >>deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
> 
> > This is incorrect.
> 
> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave function 
> and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at any spot; 
> but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of -1, and that 
> means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact same 
> probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get weird 
> stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get probabilities 
> not certainties. 
>  
> >>> Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just says 
> >>> that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each of 
> >>> which observed different outcomes.
> 
> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, 
> >>but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger equation 
> >>describes mathematically.  Consider the wave functions of these 2 systems: 
> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it is 
> observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then 
> goes on for 2 seconds.
> 
> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've taken 
> the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically different 
> probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron after 2 seconds. 
> And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree over quantum 
> interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and the 
> mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those two 
> systems are NOT the same.
> 
> > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the 
> > measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the 
> > system [...]
> 
> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be 
> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the 
> square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the probability of 
> obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect of the system, 
> but other than that things become controversial. Some people (the shut up and 
> calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is telling us, but 
> others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave people) say the math is 
> telling us more than that but disagree about what that is. But everybody 
> agrees about the math itself, and if an observation is made forget about what 
> the math may mean the very mathematics of the Schrodinger wave changes.
>  
> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an 
> > experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory input 
> > one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 and 1).
> 
> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind 
> other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what I 
> believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other 
> people, including some very smart ones, disagree so we could be wrong.
> 
>  
> Such people disbelieve in the Schrodinger equation.
> 
> Suppose (courtesy of Bruce) the SE represents a horse race with the 
> probabilities varying wrt time. What's your view of the status of the SE when 
> one horse wins and others loose? AG 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I understand the question.
> 
> Jason 
> 
> When the horse race is over (in this world), does it continue in other worlds 
> where the losers get a chance to win, or 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Dec 2018, at 19:05, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:12:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Dec 2018, at 01:07, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 3:40:53 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:
>> 
>> Is not 333’s oddness timeless?
>> 
>> Category error.
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On category error:
>> 
>> I've never understood "category error" [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake 
>>  ]. (Some philosopher I read 
>> about recently gave a talk on the non-existence of category errors. Good.) 
>> 
>> Is 333's oddness timeless? is a perfectly reasonable question.
>> 
>> To the immaterialist, the answer could be "yes".
>> To the materialist, the answer could not be "no”.
> 
> That makes sense only if the materialist describe how 333 depends on time. 
> But then I suppose he has a different definition than the usual one, and that 
> requires clarification.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> It all depends.
>> 
>> There is a type of dualists who say 333 is one category (nonphysical) and 
>> time (as in spacetime) is in another category (physical), but this dualism 
>> is just mixed-up confusion to me.
> 
> And to me to. But I guess you defends a materialist monism. That contradicts 
> Mechanism.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Gilbert Ryle's initial rendition of "category error" (about mind) stands in 
>> contradiction to Galen Strawson on that topic.
> 
> The problem with the materialist is that they need to make consciousness into 
> an illusion, and that is already jeopardise by the Cartesian Cogito. As I 
> said, it is easier to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious being 
> (especially if he remembers its dream) than to explain the illusion of 
> consciousness to a piece of matter. Now, once we work in the Digital 
> Mechanist frame, things get clearer and deeper.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> But in 2019:
> 
> Out: Eliminative ("Mechanistic") Materialism

You use “mechanism” in his pre-Gödelian reductionist sense. After Gödel, 
reductionism is simply refuted, even the reductionist conception of numbers and 
machine, to begin with.



> In:Experiential Materialism
> 
> "I think we need to radically rethink our understanding of matter in order to 
> explain consciousness,


Sure. Mechanism attributes souls to "numbers-in-relations” and in a testable 
way, as the laws of the observable are explained explicitly through them. 

And our understanding of matter is revised radically, as it becomes a product 
of the universal differentiating consciousness of the universal (Turing) 
numbers.




> in something like the way Einstein radically rethought the nature of space 
> and time.”

You can see Everett-Feynman generalising already Einstein on the quantum 
reality, and Mechanism extends this idea on the whole arithmetical reality (in 
which the Everett-Feynam part should appear, and seems to appear, as a sort of 
border/projection.

No need of design, no need of designer, just the arithmetical reality as seen 
by the universal numbers of measure one minus epsilon.

Bruno




> 
> - Philip Goff [ http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/ ]
> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Dec 2018, at 16:13, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> We have no evidence nor reason to presume that we should be in a position to 
> see everything that exists. In fact, we already know that not to be the case. 
>  We know we can't see what lays beyond the cosmological horizon, for example.
> 
> As to why I think there are likely many other universes with different laws, 
> I have many separate reasons, and they all point in the same direction:
> 
> 1. The trend of science has always been to humble humanity by showing us what 
> exists is much larger than we assumed. (Out planet is one of many, our star 
> is one of many, our galaxy is one of many, our Hubble volume is one of many, 
> etc.)
> 2. It's suggested by our leading cosmological theory (eternal inflation is 
> part of the standard model of cosmology, it is the default theory/assumption 
> in that field of science)
> 3. It's suggested by the only theories we have that are compatible with QM 
> and gravity
> 4. It explains the apparent fine tuning without resorting to intelligent 
> design or fantastic luck
> 5. Multi-verse theories are often simpler than those that constrain 
> possibility
> 6. It addresses the Wheeler question "Why these laws, not others"
> 7. There are many other perfectly sound and consistent equations (e.g. one 
> where the gravitational constantly is a different value) why should this 
> particular value for that free parameter be the only one to be "realized"
> 8. It's a conclusion of arithmetical realism
> 
> 
> How do you square the multiverse concept with what Bruno has asserted in the 
> past - that the physics experienced by universal numbers is the same for all 
> of them?
> 
> 
> When Bruno speaks to a universal physics, he is using a far more generalized 
> notion of physics (e.g. what is extractable from the laws of self reference).

But we get a non trivial very rich quantum logic (and quantum mathematics for 
the quantified extension), and by UDA they are physical laws.

That is the advantage of Mechanism: it makes physics into mathematical laws. 
All the rest will be driven by the geographic-historical differentiating 
consciousness flux associated with the universal numbers in arithmetic. 

Physics can only speculate on the possible difference between geography and 
universal laws. With mechanism, we get somehow that conceptual distinction at 
the start. Physics is just the science of observable prediction. The 
metaphysics of Mechanism makes them into law, and whatever not derivable 
becomes contingent and variable.







> 
> This might yield only a very basic set of constraints on physical laws, such 
> as:
> Physical laws should be relatively simple (as simple as possible to be 
> compatible with the observer's mind tied to that physical environment)
> Physical laws will be mostly computable
> Physical laws will be relatively stable
> Physical laws will yield at best probabilistic predictions (when considering 
> questions below one's "substitution level")
> Physical laws must permit the construction of Turing machines
> Physical systems will appear to evolve in time
> Physical systems will appear to be continuous and linear
> Information will likely play a fundamental role
> Physical universes should appear to contain a large (perhaps infinite) number 
> of observers

But, we have to get the whole mathematics of this, and this should include the 
fundamental forces, the symmetrical hamiltonian, the reversibility of laws, the 
particles, etc. The arithmetical constraints and arithmetical realism makes 
physics reducible to self-reference, like quantum mechanics makes  chemistry 
into a branch of physics “conceptually” (practically, rules of thumb are added, 
as we cannot solve the equations in practice). 




> Basic principals like these might serve as a universal physics, but in my 
> view many things might remain open and contingent, such as:
> The mass of the electron
> Whether or not there are electrons, protons or any of the familiar particles 
> we know
> The dimensionality of time and space
> Conservation laws
> The speed of light (if there is light)
> What the fundamental "stuff" is (are they Game of Life Cells, 10-dimensional 
> strings, etc.)
OK. That is open problem, for the next generation. Meanwhile, mechanism can be 
refuted also.




> There are many imaginable ways an observer's mind could be built and could 
> arise.  Each of these imaginable ways is a "physical environment" for 
> someone, but some of them are going to be much more common than others.

The observable with measure one must be the same for all universal machine. 
Only the histories and geographies will remain contingent. (See my other 
explanation of yesterday).

Bruno





> 
> Jason 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Dec 2018, at 15:55, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> We have no evidence nor reason to presume that we should be in a position to 
> see everything that exists. In fact, we already know that not to be the case. 
>  We know we can't see what lays beyond the cosmological horizon, for example.
> 
> As to why I think there are likely many other universes with different laws, 
> I have many separate reasons, and they all point in the same direction:
> 
> 1. The trend of science has always been to humble humanity by showing us what 
> exists is much larger than we assumed. (Out planet is one of many, our star 
> is one of many, our galaxy is one of many, our Hubble volume is one of many, 
> etc.)
> 2. It's suggested by our leading cosmological theory (eternal inflation is 
> part of the standard model of cosmology, it is the default theory/assumption 
> in that field of science)
> 3. It's suggested by the only theories we have that are compatible with QM 
> and gravity
> 4. It explains the apparent fine tuning without resorting to intelligent 
> design or fantastic luck
> 5. Multi-verse theories are often simpler than those that constrain 
> possibility
> 6. It addresses the Wheeler question "Why these laws, not others"
> 7. There are many other perfectly sound and consistent equations (e.g. one 
> where the gravitational constantly is a different value) why should this 
> particular value for that free parameter be the only one to be "realized"
> 8. It's a conclusion of arithmetical realism
> 
> 
> How do you square the multiverse concept with what Bruno has asserted in the 
> past - that the physics experienced by universal numbers is the same for all 
> of them?

Ah! I knew I have already explained this! In fact 8. and 7. contradicts each 
other a little bit here. I would say.

Bruno 


> 
> Terren 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2018, at 18:59, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM > wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
> 
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. We 
> know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there will 
> be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation of 
> theorems.
> 
> Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG
> 
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you referred 
> to are broad principles, not axioms.
> 
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic.
> 
> Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG
> 
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that most 
> logicians use that term.
> 
> An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG
> 
> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just a 
> formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.
> 
> IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
> obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
> Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
> evolves. Give me a break. AG 

The whole point of doing metaphysics or theology with the scientific attitude 
would consist in understanding that this kind of nuance and definition are not 
obfuscating anything. On the contrary, they help to be more clear, and to 
prevent the use of metaphysical biases.

When doing physics, we can assume informally that the SWE is correct, but when 
doing Mechanist metaphysics, we can’t, and this is just an example, so it helps 
to use the terms with they standard meaning in science, and not with imprecise 
meanings which usually only hides the (open) problems.



> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics.
> 
> Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure "for 
> physics". AG 
> 
> They failed,
> 
> It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG 
> 
> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
> abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
> 
> Most physicists are not confused as you allege.

I agree. That is why I insist that there is no problem with physics or with 
physicists. I make clear that the problem is with metaphysics. The Aristotelian 
metaphysics is wrong. Now, some people are good in physics, but are not even 
aware that the confusion between physics and metaphysics ïs* the main axiom of 
the Aristotelian theology (with or without an important or trivial notion of 
first god, matter being the second god, but still the main one for the 
aristotelians (believer in primary matter, or physicalists).

The problem is not physics, but physicalism; when we assume the Mechanist 
hypothesis.





> IMO, this line of discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG 


No. It is fact that the God/Non-God debate hides the original question of 
scientific theology: is there a universe existing fundamentally, in need to be 
assumed or in need of faith (like the Aristotelian think), or is the physical 
universe a symptom of a deeper non physical reality (like Pythagorus, Plato, …).

Physics is neutral on this; but physicalism is the Aristotelian theological 
axiom. No problem, unless it used as a dogma for not testing simpler theories.

Mechanism works. Physicalism do not, at least with Mechanism.

Mechanism explains why there is an apparent universe, but also why its 
mathematics split into a sharable theory of sharable quanta, and a partially 
sharable theory of non sharable quanta and subjective impressions.

Physicalist usually just eliminate consciousness, and use simplistic identity 
thesis to make prediction. The problem is that physics + mechanism simply 
cannot work. 

Bruno



> Before we get serious on this, axiomatic cannot be used in physics, 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/22/2018 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that
>>> > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for
>>> > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they can
>>> > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not).
>>>
>>> They can define it in words, but can they define it physically.
>>>
>>>
>> What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to their
>> direction through spacetime?
>>
>>
>> That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant galaxy
>> Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their "direction through
>> spacetime" constant over billions of years?
>>
>
> If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event
> arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the
> observer.
>
>
> You mean it could have been considered simultaneous if the observer had
> known it at the time and the observer had not changed motion in the
> intervening years.
>
>
> If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their
> interpretation of what constitutes the present.
>
>
> So as I get up and walk to the garage, whole galaxies of events switch
> from my past to my future. What is the physical significance of this?
>
>
> Brent
>


Nothing, beyond showing we exist in a 4d spacetime with no objective
present (a block time).

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/22/2018 4:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I am not advocating any global reference frame, just
mentioning that
> for a particular observe, they can define a present that
works for
> them (in their own reference frame). From their point of
view they can
> consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not).

They can define it in words, but can they define it physically.


What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to
their direction through spacetime?


That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant
galaxy Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their
"direction through spacetime" constant over billions of years?


If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event 
arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the 
observer.


You mean it could have been considered simultaneous if the observer had 
known it at the time and the observer had not changed motion in the 
intervening years.




If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their 
interpretation of what constitutes the present.


So as I get up and walk to the garage, whole galaxies of events switch 
from my past to my future.  What is the physical significance of this?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:29:45 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that 
>>> > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for 
>>> > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they can 
>>> > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not). 
>>>
>>> They can define it in words, but can they define it physically.
>>>
>>>
>> What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to their 
>> direction through spacetime?
>>
>>
>> That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant galaxy 
>> Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their "direction through 
>> spacetime" constant over billions of years?
>>
>
> If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event 
> arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the 
> observer.
>

*So light leaving the Sun arrives 8 minutes later than when it was emitted. 
Not simultaneous for observer on Earth and observer on Sun. AG *

>
> If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their 
> interpretation of what constitutes the present.
>
> Jason 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant galaxy
>> Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their "direction through
>> spacetime" constant over billions of years?
>>
>
> If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event
> arrives in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the
> observer.
>

That is not the way in which the plane of simultaneity is normally defined.
Your idea gives events that are not simultaneous in any frame!

Bruce

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:29 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function 
>> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
>> in the 
>> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the 
>> square of 
>> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
>> produces 
>> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
>> objective, 
>> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
>> that is 
>> not deterministic.
>>
>
> >>> *It is still deterministic. *
>

 >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function 
 is deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 

>>>
>>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>>
>>
>> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
>> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
>> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to 
>> get 
>> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
>> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle 
>> at 
>> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root 
>> of 
>> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
>> exact 
>> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you 
>> get 
>> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
>> probabilities not certainties. 
>>  
>>
>>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it 
> just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
> observers, 
> each of which observed different outcomes.*
>

 >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is 
 controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the 
 Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
 functions 
 of these 2 systems: 
 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it 
 is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X 
 and then goes on for 2 seconds.

 The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after 
 you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find 
 radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find 
 the 
 electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
 people 
 disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the 
 mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger 
 equation 
 describes in those two systems are NOT the same.

>>>
>>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter 
>>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you 
>>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>>
>>
>> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
>> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
>> be 
>> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do 
>> know the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us 
>> the probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular 
>> aspect of the system, but other than that things become controversial. 
>> Some 
>> people (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the 
>> math is telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot 
>> Wave people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree 
>> about 
>> what that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an 
>> observation is made forget about what the math may mean the very 
>> mathematics of the Schrodinger wave changes.
>>  
>>
>>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you 
>>> simulated an experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in 
>>> as 
>>> sensory input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a 
>>> superposed 
>>> 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:01 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/21/2018 5:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > I am not advocating any global reference frame, just mentioning that
>> > for a particular observe, they can define a present that works for
>> > them (in their own reference frame). From their point of view they can
>> > consider themselves at rest (whether they are or are not).
>>
>> They can define it in words, but can they define it physically.
>>
>>
> What is wrong with using the 3-d hyperspace perpendicular to their
> direction through spacetime?
>
>
> That's words.  How shall they determine whether event X in distant galaxy
> Y is simultaneous with their clock reading Z?  Is their "direction through
> spacetime" constant over billions of years?
>

If the event occurred N-light years away, and light from that event arrives
in N-years, then it can be considered simultaneous with the observer.

If their direction through spacetime changes, they must change their
interpretation of what constitutes the present.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:29 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function
> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
> in the
> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
> of
> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
> produces
> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
> objective,
> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
> that is
> not deterministic.
>

 >>> *It is still deterministic. *

>>>
>>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is
>>> deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not.
>>>
>>
>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>
>
> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the
> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave
> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get
> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave
> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at
> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of
> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
> exact
> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get
> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get
> probabilities not certainties.
>
>
>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it
 just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
 observers,
 each of which observed different outcomes.*

>>>
>>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is
>>> controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the
>>> Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
>>> functions
>>> of these 2 systems:
>>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it
>>> is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and
>>> then goes on for 2 seconds.
>>>
>>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after
>>> you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find
>>> radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find the
>>> electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
>>> people
>>> disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the
>>> mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation
>>> describes in those two systems are NOT the same.
>>>
>>
>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter
>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you
>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>
>
> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and
> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
> be
> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know
> the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the
> probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect
> of the system, but other than that things become controversial. Some 
> people
> (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is
> telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave
> people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what
> that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation
> is made forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the 
> Schrodinger
> wave changes.
>
>
>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you
>> simulated an experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in 
>> as
>> sensory input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed
>> state (0 and 1).
>>
>
> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any
> mind other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about
> what I believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but
> other people, including some 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka
> universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the initial
> theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense of
> theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on which
> universal machinery we talk about).
>
> Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the
> universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its states.
> All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical and/or
> historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep histories.
>
>
> So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes
> conservation of energy-momentum for example?
>
>
> It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have collapsed
> into classical logic,
>
>
> No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted
> the logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your
> theory, but would have had no effect on physics.
>
> for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in that
> case there would be a infinite “landscape” of geographies/histories
> possible, and the laws of physics would be trivial somehow, that is empty.
> Thanks to incompleteness the logic of physics (that is, the logic of the
> measure one on the sigma_1 sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non
> trivial logic quantum, and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities
> are not trivial, and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the
> leaves of the UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that
> “observable” view point.
>
>
> But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd
> say are trivial.
>
>
> The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) machine
> (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person plural
> indeterminacy on all relative computations.
>
> That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false (assuming
> that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, where we are just
> lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all computations”
>
>
> But what does it mean to "sum on all computations"?
>
> with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions.
>
>
> What is an observation in these computations?
>
> If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the normal
> (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to prevent we got
> the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, and which requires an
> infinite work on the par of the liar).
>
> If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical constant coming from the
> semantics of the “material hypostases” (the S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* logics), then
> it is part of the laws. If the Planck constant is shown to be not derivable
> from them, then it is “geographical”, and some region of the
> “multi-multi-verse” might have a different one.
>
>
> That's just saying either my theory applies to X, or X is an exception.
>
>
> The quantum seems to be the digital seen from inside. Mechanism saves the
> quantum and symmetries from being contingent geographies. The laws of
> physics are laws, indeed, mathematical laws derivable from the mathematics
> of the universal (Gödel-Löbian) machines.
>
> Number theory might suggest shortcut toward physics, and explain why group
> theory plays a so big role in physics, and why it seems the unitary group
> imposes itself and how this is related to a measure one on a universal
> Turing structure. The particles are group invariants, so that light help to
> get the bosons and the fermions.
>
>
> The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz
> transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?
>

It's all just burble, Brent. He has no idea how to get any useful results
from any of this...

Bruce

>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/21/2018 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


...

With Mechanism, physics has to be the same for all “observers” aka 
universal machines, and indeed physics has to be independent of the 
initial theory (phi_independent, or “machine independent” in the sense 
of theoretical computer scientist (recursion theory does not depend on 
which universal machinery we talk about).


Indeed, physics becomes simply the “measure one expectation” of the 
universal machine on all computations going through (any) of its 
states. All the rest will be contingent and can be called geographical 
and/or historical. Our mundane consciousness requires long and deep 
histories.


So what expectation has measure 1.0?  Can you show that it includes 
conservation of energy-momentum for example?




It could have been possible that the logic of physics would have 
collapsed into classical logic,


No.  It could have been possible that your theory incorrectly predicted 
the logic of physics collapsed.  Which would have been bad for  your 
theory, but would have had no effect on physics.


for example if incompleteness was false and arithmetic complete, in 
that case there would be a infinite “landscape” of 
geographies/histories possible, and the laws of physics would be 
trivial somehow, that is empty. Thanks to incompleteness the logic of 
physics (that is, the logic of the measure one on the sigma_1 
sentences (the logic of []p & <>t); obeys a non trivial logic quantum, 
and orthomodular logic suggesting the probabilities are not trivial, 
and suggesting also that the logico-physical bottom (the leaves of the 
UD, the sigma_1 true sentences) is symmetrical from that “observable” 
view point.


But the probabilities you've derived are either zero or one...which I'd 
say are trivial.




The core physical laws are invariant for all universal (Löbian) 
machine (in the Classical Digital Frame of course). It is first person 
plural indeterminacy on all relative computations.


That is why we can detect experimentally if mechanism is false 
(assuming that we are not in a malevolent second order emulation, 
where we are just lied) by comparing the physics “sum on all 
computations”


But what does it mean to "sum on all computations"?


with the physics of the “actually” observable predictions.


What is an observation in these computations?

If there is a discrepancy, mechanism is refuted, or we are in the 
normal (gaussian) world, but “captured in some simulation trying to 
prevent we got the right laws of physics (something rather absurde, 
and which requires an infinite work on the par of the liar).


If Planck constant is derivable from mathematical constant coming from 
the semantics of the “material hypostases” (the S4Grz1, Z1*, X1* 
logics), then it is part of the laws. If the Planck constant is shown 
to be not derivable from them, then it is “geographical”, and some 
region of the “multi-multi-verse” might have a different one.


That's just saying either my theory applies to X, or X is an exception.



The quantum seems to be the digital seen from inside. Mechanism saves 
the quantum and symmetries from being contingent geographies. The laws 
of physics are laws, indeed, mathematical laws derivable from the 
mathematics of the universal (Gödel-Löbian) machines.


Number theory might suggest shortcut toward physics, and explain why 
group theory plays a so big role in physics, and why it seems the 
unitary group imposes itself and how this is related to a measure one 
on a universal Turing structure. The particles are group invariants, 
so that light help to get the bosons and the fermions.


The particles are (local) Lorentz invariants.  But how do Lorentz 
transformations show up in the computations (of the Ud?)?


Brent



We can dig from all sides. The advantage of looking “in the head of 
the universal machine” is that we benefit from the Gödel-Löb-Solovay 
G/G* separation between proof and truth, and its inheritance in the 
“material” hypostases, which explains a lot, I think, about the 
relation between the qualia and the quanta, the sensible privately 
knowable and the first person plural sharable.


Bruno






Jason

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/22/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:03 PM Jason Resch > wrote:


On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:05 PM Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jason Resch
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

1. It is a prediction of eternal inflation and string theory.


String theory and its "landscape" are very speculative, and
unlikely to have any relation to the real world -- there is
no evidence that string theory is even a coherent theory!
Eternal inflation, although popular, is only one possibility
for inflation, and even inflationary theory itself is not
well-established science.


I agree they are speculative, but they are on the side many many
universes.
Meanwhile there is no evidence for "the only universe that exists
is the one I can see".


The universe we see is the only one for which we have any concrete 
evidence, and that evidence is indubitable.


That is of course a strong evidence for a physical reality, but unless 
we buy the Aristotelian theology, “seeing” is not an evidence for a 
metaphysical reality.


That's sort of redefining what is meant by "reality".



I think the whole problem is here:  a confusion for the evidence for 
physics with an evidence for a metaphysics. This has worked for 1500 
years, only by terror, violence, and then habits, and the constant 
hiding of the (mind-body) problem under the rug (notably through 
“fairy tales”).


Physics is the evidence for metaphysics, i.e. metaphysics is about 
physics, it seeks to explain why the world, including physics, is what 
it is.


Brent


Physics is a wonderful science, but to make physics systematically, 
without argument nor evidence,  into a metaphysics is a form of 
“modern” charlatanism, when made consciously, and still a form of 
obscurantism when done by ignorance. With science, doubts are mandatory.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:18:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. 
> We know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there 
> will be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation 
> of theorems.
>
>
> *Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG*
>
>
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you 
> referred to are broad principles, not axioms.
>
>
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic. 
>
>
> *Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG*
>
>
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that 
> most logicians use that term.
>
>
> *An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG*
>
>
> That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just 
> a formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.
>


*IMO, your comment, while possibly true in a technical sense, is just 
obfuscating BS. For example, for non relativistic QM, we assume 
Schroedinger's equation is "true", or correctly represents how the wf 
evolves. Give me a break. AG *

> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics. 
>
>
>
> *Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure 
> "for physics". AG *
>
> They failed,
>
>
>
> *It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG *
>
>
> Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
> abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
> By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
> metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
>

*Most physicists are not confused as you allege. IMO, this line of 
discussion is just an effort to create strawmen. AG *

> Before we get serious on this, axiomatic cannot be used in physics, and 
> even in physicalist metaphysics. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  
>
> but I think this should be pursued, as it will help for the type of 
> consideration we have here, but that is a difficult task. Einstein was 
> using the spirit of axiomatic thinking in SR, OK.
>
>  
> *Not merely "spirit", but concrete results. Einstein was able to derive 
> the Lorentz transformation from his two postulates or axioms; namely, the 
> Principle of Relativity and the invariance of the SoL for inertial frames, 
> and in the process rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant.  AG*
>
> But like Euclid, he remains “intuitive” for the math part.
>
>
> *Not merely intuitive, but concrete math results! See above. AG *
>
> *Same situation prevails for QM as far as axioms are concerned, but here 
> there's nothing intuitive!  For wave mechanics, there are about 4 or 5 
> postulates or axioms pulled out of a hat, from which the consequences 
> follow. For Feynman's Path Integral model, there are 3 postulates, which 
> have already been posted. AG*
>
> Minkowski axiomatic is more like the use in logic, but then it is no more 
> physics. The difficulty to axiomatic physics is … the nature of what we man 
> by “universe”, or by a physical reality, or even a physical experimental 
> device. We work with our intuitive model of this, for good practical 
> reasons.
>
>
> *Nothing intuitive about one of our best physics theory, QM, AG *
>
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:53:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2018, at 05:44, Jason Resch > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:28 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:07 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:11 PM Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:49 AM Jason Resch >>> > wrote:

>
> Do you believe other locations in space exist?
>

 They exist, but there is no sense in which they are simultaneous with 
 my existence.

>>>
>>> There are certain senses in which you could, but I mostly agree (as they 
>>> are not objective).
>>>  
>>>
 They exist because events at other locations in my past light cone can 
 affect me, and I can affect events at other locations in my future light 
 cone.

>>>
>>> Okay, no problem with this.
>>>  
>>>
 Do you believe other locations in time exist?
>

 I believe that I have a past, and will have a future, but I do not 
 believe that these exist in my present. Such an idea is clearly a 
 linguistic confusion.

>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>  
>>>
 (I answer yes to both questions, that is all I mean by block time -- 
> that there is no privileged part of space time blessed with the property 
> of 
> existence).
>

 The present is all that you can know exists. All else is idle 
 speculation. 

>>>
>>> But you just said there is no such thing as the present (since there is 
>>> no objective notion of simultaneity)
>>>
>>
>> I have never said that there is no such thing as the present. All I have 
>> said is that the notion of a space-like hyper-surface of simultaneity is 
>> not an objective notion.
>>
>
> Okay I agree with this.  I happen to take this as evidence that the 
> "passage of time" is also not an objective notion.  What do you think about 
> the passage of time, is it purely a subjective notion in your view?
>  
>
>> The print moment exists now for ev very one of us individually. 
>>
>
>> Of course, you can construct imaginary theories in which unicorns, 
 fairies, and Hogwarts Castle exist, but you would not have any evidence 
 for 
 any of these.

>>>
>>> You just said you have evidence for the existence of objects in your 
>>> past light cone.  Why presume that they would disappear from existence?  
>>> What is the motivation/justification for such an idea?
>>>
>>
>> I have no evidence that they exist now, since all I am currently aware of 
>> is the record of their past existence as it is present to me now. The 
>> evidence is that they existed in the past. Why is that not sufficient? I 
>> tend not to believe in things, like fairies, for which I have no current 
>> evidence.
>>
>
> This seems to be a trend that explains all aspects of your philosophy.  
> For example, rejecting many-worlds, rejecting other universes, rejecting 
> other points in time, rejecting mathematical objects. It's based purely on 
> what you can see.  It is a theory of minimizing the number of objects in 
> reality. But to me this is not a correct application of Occam, which was 
> about simplifying theories by reducing their unnecessary assumptions, 
> rather than reducing the ontologies of those theories.
>
> So by lobbing off the assumption that some points in the past stop 
> existing, you get a larger universe, more points in spacetime exist (but 
> this is simpler, as you don't have to add a theory of how different events 
> come into or out of existence), or with many-worlds, if you drop the 
> collapse postulate, you get the same predictions, and a simpler theory (but 
> a huge number of unseen histories).  With this different philosophy/value 
> system I don't think we will ever agree on what makes for a better theory, 
> for in all these cases that we disagree, it comes down to my preference for 
> a simpler theory, and your preference for a simpler ontology.
>
>
> I would say that with Mechanism we get both a simple ontology (just 0, 1, 
> 2, …) and a simple theory, just the two SK axioms, or the very elementary 
> RA. Yet, we get a extremely rich phenomenology, unboundedly complex with 
> sharable and non sharable truth, with infinitely many histories and 
> cosmos/multivers, etc, and with many persons and their experiences (no risk 
> to sacrifice souls and consciousness).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>


Arithmetical entities cannot have real (unsimulated*) experiences. Material 
entities can.


* cf. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsimulated_sex ]

-pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:42:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett > 
> wrote:
>
>
> The universe we see is the only one for which we have any concrete 
> evidence, and that evidence is indubitable.
>
>
> That is of course a strong evidence for a physical reality, but unless we 
> buy the Aristotelian theology, “seeing” is not an evidence for a 
> metaphysical reality. 
>
> I think the whole problem is here:  a confusion for the evidence for 
> physics with an evidence for a metaphysics. This has worked for 1500 years, 
> only by terror, violence, and then habits, and the constant hiding of the 
> (mind-body) problem under the rug (notably through “fairy tales”).
>
> Physics is a wonderful science, but to make physics systematically, 
> without argument nor evidence,  into a metaphysics is a form of “modern” 
> charlatanism, when made consciously, and still a form of obscurantism when 
> done by ignorance. With science, doubts are mandatory.
>
> Bruno
>



Physics (a collection of "accepted" formulated [in mathematical language] 
theories - the Standard Model, General Relativity - and "pending" ones - 
string theory, cosmic inflation, loop quantum gravity...) is a type of 
fictionalism. But is a different "genre" of fiction than mathematics.

*Fictions, Inference, and Realism*
Mauricio Suárez
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5013/1/Fictions%2C_Inference%2C_and_Realism.pdf


Abstract: 
*It is often assumed without argument that fictionalism in the philosophy 
of science contradicts scientific realism. This paper is a critical 
analysis of this assumption. The kind of fictionalism that is at present 
discussed in philosophy of science is characterized, and distinguished from 
fictionalism in other areas. A distinction is then drawn between forms of 
fictional representation, and two competing accounts of fiction in science 
are discussed. I then outline explicitly what I take to be the argument for 
the incompatibility of scientific realism with fictionalism. I argue that 
some of its premises are unwarranted, and are moreover questionable from a 
fictionalist perspective. The conclusion is that fictionalism is neutral in 
the realism-antirealism debate, pulling neither in favor nor against 
scientific realism.*


- pt


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:46:06 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 19 Dec 2018, at 16:52, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:01:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:42 PM > wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 5:31:06 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
> 
> But we are talking about definitions of objects, not axioms of a theory. We 
> know that any axiomatic theory will necessarily be incomplete -- there will 
> be formulae in the theory that are neither theorems nor the negation of 
> theorems.
> 
> Based on the examples I previously offered, that QM and SR are axiomatic 
> theories, can we conclude they're incomplete? AG
> 
> Such theories of physics are not axiomatic theories. The things you referred 
> to are broad principles, not axioms.
> 
> That is right. Most theories in math and physics are not axiomatic.
> 
> Concerning physics, nonsense! There's no difference between "the general 
> principles" defining quantum mechanics and SR, and the "axioms" defining 
> these theories. In SR, the genius of Einstein in 1905 was to put the theory 
> on an axiomatic basis which rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant. AG
> 
> I guess you are using the term “axiomatic” in a more general sense that most 
> logicians use that term.
> 
> An "axiom" is any statement one assumes to be true. AG

That is a general meaning in general philosophy. In logic an axiom is just a 
formula, or even a machine, and has nothing to do with truth a priori.



> 
> I know only Carnap and Bunge to have attempted axiomatic (in the stricter) 
> logician sense for physics.
> 
> Absent a Theory of Everything, there is no possible axiomatic structure "for 
> physics". AG 
> 
> They failed,
> 
> It was a project doomed to failure because there is no such thing as a 
> general theory of physics for which it could be applied. AG 

Not yet. The problem of physics is that its meaning/semantics is still not 
abstracted from some metaphysical commitment.
By separating science and religion, physics tends to be confused with 
metaphysics. Some posts in this list confirms this.  
Before we get serious on this, axiomatic cannot be used in physics, and even in 
physicalist metaphysics. 

Bruno


>  
> but I think this should be pursued, as it will help for the type of 
> consideration we have here, but that is a difficult task. Einstein was using 
> the spirit of axiomatic thinking in SR, OK.
>  
> Not merely "spirit", but concrete results. Einstein was able to derive the 
> Lorentz transformation from his two postulates or axioms; namely, the 
> Principle of Relativity and the invariance of the SoL for inertial frames, 
> and in the process rendered Lorentz's ether theory irrelevant.  AG
> 
> But like Euclid, he remains “intuitive” for the math part.
> 
> Not merely intuitive, but concrete math results! See above. AG 
> 
> Same situation prevails for QM as far as axioms are concerned, but here 
> there's nothing intuitive!  For wave mechanics, there are about 4 or 5 
> postulates or axioms pulled out of a hat, from which the consequences follow. 
> For Feynman's Path Integral model, there are 3 postulates, which have already 
> been posted. AG
> 
> Minkowski axiomatic is more like the use in logic, but then it is no more 
> physics. The difficulty to axiomatic physics is … the nature of what we man 
> by “universe”, or by a physical reality, or even a physical experimental 
> device. We work with our intuitive model of this, for good practical reasons.
> 
> Nothing intuitive about one of our best physics theory, QM, AG 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same for mathematical logic: where formal axiomatic are the subject 
> matter, but all proofs are given informally (with the notable exception of 
> principle mathematica). 
> 
> Now, if we formalise a bit of quantum mechanics, we get quickly a theory rich 
> enough to define universal machine or numbers, so QM, when seen formally, is 
> incomplete for arithmetic. That does not mean that it is incomplete for 
> physics, a notion which is also not very well defined. For SR? It will 
> depends largely how we formalise it.
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To u
> ...

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:29:54 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch  
> wrote:
>
>  The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function 
> using complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective 
> in the 
> same way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square 
> of 
> the absolute value of the wave function is observable because that 
> produces 
> a probability that we can measure in the physical world that is 
> objective, 
> provided  anything deserves that word; but it also yields something 
> that is 
> not deterministic.
>

 >>> *It is still deterministic. *

>>>
>>> >>That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is 
>>> deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. 
>>>
>>
>> > *This is incorrect.*
>>
>
> What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the 
> Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave 
> function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get 
> something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave 
> function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle 
> at 
> any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root 
> of 
> -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the 
> exact 
> same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get 
> weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get 
> probabilities not certainties. 
>  
>
>> >>> *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it 
 just says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of 
 observers, 
 each of which observed different outcomes.*

>>>
>>> >>That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is 
>>> controversial, but what is not controversial is the wave function the 
>>> Schrodinger equation describes mathematically.  Consider the wave 
>>> functions 
>>> of these 2 systems: 
>>> 1) An  electron of velocity V starts at X  and after one second it 
>>> is observed at point Y and then goes on for  another second.
>>> 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and 
>>> then goes on for 2 seconds.
>>>
>>> The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after 
>>> you've taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find 
>>> radically different probabilities about where you're likely to find the 
>>> electron after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, 
>>> people 
>>> disagree over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the 
>>> mathematics, and the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation 
>>> describes in those two systems are NOT the same.
>>>
>>
>> *> If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter 
>> making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you 
>> unambiguously the system* [...]
>>
>
> The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and 
> deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will 
> be 
> but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know 
> the square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the 
> probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular 
> aspect 
> of the system, but other than that things become controversial. Some 
> people 
> (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is 
> telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave 
> people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what 
> that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an 
> observation 
> is made forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the 
> Schrodinger 
> wave changes.
>  
>
>> > If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you 
>> simulated an experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in 
>> as 
>> sensory input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed 
>> state (0 and 1).
>>
>
> I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any 
> mind other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch