*Interesting post. TY. I think the argument about whether mathematics or physics better represents "real" knowledge is fruitless to pursue. I do know that mathematical theorems, once proved, are set in stone. OTOH, physical theories evolve over time, and without mathematics the huge progress we have made would have been impossible. Could we have QM without mathematical operators and differential equations? ... I don't think String Theory "insists" on any number of universes. The number you cite below just represents the possible number of universes in the landscape. If time is infinite, I agree that all would have, or will be realized. ... I was aware that overwhelmingly irrational numbers can't be computed and therefore may not be relevant to physics. But so what? Much of mathematics is relevant, in fact necessary. AG*
On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 9:58:20 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> *> How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* >> > > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster > than light and the future can't effect the past. > > Realism means a property of something exists in just one state even if is > not being observed, for example a unmeasured electron is either spin up or > spin down we just don't know which one because we haven't measured it yet, > Realism means it is never a mixture of spin up and spin down. > > >> *> As I wrote, and you ignored, the constituents of the baseball are in >> entangled states,* >> > *with their neighbors to create the macro "object",* >> > > Yes, and with emphasis on "states" not "state". All the particles in a > baseball are not entangled with each other or with the same object in the > environment, if they were the atoms would lose their individual identity > and the baseball would become a > Bose–Einstein condensate > . > > *> the overall "state" of the object -- if one could be defined -- does >> NOT contradict localism or realism* >> > > If it's local and realistic and if Bell's Inequality is violated (and we > know experimentally that it is) then we know it can't be deterministic. Yes > you might want to have all 3, Einstein wanted that too but since Einstein's > day experiment has proved you just can't have determinism locality and > realism. And that means there is no getting around it, quantum physics is > weird. > > > >> >> >>> Ignore it? I didn't ignore it I'm the one who pointed it out! Three >>> entirely different theories in 3 apparently different areas of physics all >>> were forced to come to the exact same conclusion, the Multiverse must exist. >>> >> >> *> I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. >> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some >> world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence >> to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".* >> > > The MWI people don't have to assume anything because > there is absolutely nothing in t > he Schrodinger > Wave E > quation > about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that > somehow it does. > > >> *> Same situation in String Theory; no "must"; simply other possible >> universes in the landscape.* >> > > String Theory doesn't insist on an infinite number of other universes, > but it does insist on at least 10^500 of them and there are only about > 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. > > > *> Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some >> outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million other >> universe? * >> > > I could be wrong but that would be my best guess. > > *> Seems ridiculous to me.* >> > > Fine, but keep in mind reality is not obligated to pay attention to your > personal incredulity. It would certainly be odd but odd is not the same > thing as a logical self contradiction, and we already know whatever turns > out to be true it will be odd. > > *> Essentially, all calculations and predictions in physics are >> approximations. * >> > > Is a mathematical model an approximation of a physical hurricane or is > the physical hurricane an approximation of the mathematical model? I think > the physics is more fundamental than the mathematics. > > > >> *> Can't a Turing Machine calculate some rational numbers in finite >> time,* >> > > Certainly a Turing Machine can calculate some rational numbers in finite > time but very very very few; and it can calculate almost none of the Real > Numbers even in infinite time. > > >> *> Physics uses approximations regularly, always. Does this mean >> mathematical knowledge is meaningless; just a "story"?* >> > > > Mathematicians are always saying mathematics is a language, well English > is a language too and you can use English to write both fiction and > nonfiction, you can even write fantasy stories in English that violate the > laws of physics. > > Some very abstract modern mathematics may be like Harry Potter stories > written in the language of mathematics, entertaining > and > thought provoking > and maybe even poetic > but having nothing to do with the physical world. > > >> *> The fact that PI can't be calculated precisely doesn't mean that >> irrational numbers, in this case PI, are irrelevant to physics.* >> > > PI is irrational but it is a computable number, you can get arbitrarily > close to it by using for example an infinite series; but PI is a oddball, > most Real numbers are NOT computable, there is no way to even approximate > them so there is no way to specify one and give it a name. In fact if you > stuck a infinitely sharp needle at random in the Real number line there is > a 100% chance it would hit a non-computable number and a 0% chance it would > hit a computable number. There are an infinite number of both sorts of > numbers but the computable sort is just countably infinite while the other > is continuously infinite, a higher order of infinity. > > > *> Keep in mind that if space-time is continuous, [...]* >> > > If space-time is > continuous > > its very hard for me > to > understand why no mechanical procedure that makes use of space and time > can even approximate most numbers on the > continuous > real number line. > > >> *> the Many Worlds allegedly manifested as outcomes in a simple slit >> experiment is UNCOUNTABLE. * >> > > Even if there are a uncountable number of worlds in each individual > world the number of PHYSICAL points on a line could still be countable. > > 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.
