Nicely written article, on a thing we have been looking forward to for a while.
Would be interesting to look at this state under Lorentz transforms, given that it is spatially localized and using Anderson’s asymptotically-total internal reflection to create a specially ordered pattern (if I understood which of the designs was ultimately used). Quantum computer made of ultra-cold aligned particles in a synchrotron accelerator. Eric > On Aug 11, 2021, at 11:16 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Eternal Change for No Energy: A Time Crystal Finally Made Real > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.quantamagazine.org%2ffirst-time-crystal-built-using-googles-quantum-computer-20210730%2f&c=E,1,pWVZJcEdKd1HtqiLo8HFw4ge3TSdSFiGHzhgSAgSrq1RoMvoQHZywkMvhN_C2YStFFVjbSfGkmrm1y3aKMV56pjw_dyXXMZqVlabOEKlSBXmSa0TFls,&typo=1 > > > > On 7/26/21 7:59 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: >> No, thanks very much for the transcript. Time as updating is an old concept. >> So, it's not clear to me that they're talking about anything new *there*. >> But they sound a bit wrong to me in decoupling the updating from the >> *subgraph* that gets updated as well as any kind of causal cascade of >> updating (dependent/sequential vs. independent/parallel). You can't separate >> dependency from the graph. So if there is a dependent update in one part of >> the graph, dependent on another part of the graph, then the updating cannot >> be independent of the graph. I.e. space and time are not independent and, >> perhaps, not different things at all. Perhaps progressive updating is >> *merely* that the graph has large scale cycles? So, an updating over there >> drives an updating here, which drives an updating over there? >> >> Of course, they're way smarter than me. So I'm sure there's some deep >> literature somewhere and I should, but probably won't, RTFM. >> >> >> On 7/23/21 6:32 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: >>> Anyway, I hope including the transcript here was not too boring. >> >> [reordered rather than snipped] >> >>> Thank you for looking into it. Yes, that is the publication. Also, thank >>> you for posting "The post-truth prophets"[0]. Sean Illing manages to get at >>> the heart of what I find myself defending regarding postmodernism[1]. You >>> may remember that some months ago, I was on a "Bergson through the eyes of >>> Deleuze"-kick. Bergson, a prominent philosopher of mind, space, and time >>> (in his time) was driven completely underground by Einstein, Russell, and >>> other promoters of relativity theory. By many historical accounts, the work >>> of Bergson could have been all but forgotten had Deleuze not resurrected >>> his ideas, and especially their applications to film. Crucial to Bergson's >>> conception was to recognize time and space as explicitly different kinds of >>> things, and via his admiration of Riemann, sought out but never found a >>> mathematical treatment for his ideas. Listening to Wolfram's interview on >>> Sean Carroll's podcast[2], I cannot help but wonder if this recent work is >>> a step toward Bergson's >>> dream. Around 42 minutes into the interview, SeanC and SteveW record: >>> >>> """ >>> 0:41:26.7 SW: That is, you might have thought to get something as >>> computationally sophisticated as us humans with our brains and all this >>> kind of thing you need the whole process that’s led to us humans. But what >>> the principle of computational equivalence says is that’s not true. Even >>> these very simple systems with very simple rules can do it, and that has… >>> Well, it has lots of consequences. If you’re worrying about >>> extraterrestrial intelligence, for example, that tells you it’s everywhere. >>> It’s a question of whether we are sufficiently aligned with that >>> intelligence to be able to recognize it as something that, for example, has >>> purposes that we can understand as sort of human-like purposes. And I think >>> this idea intelligence requires liquid water is almost laughable. >>> >>> 0:42:10.2 SC: Right. [laughter] I’m on your side when it comes to that, but >>> intelligence might require spacetime in some sense, so let’s at least try >>> to get that. Is this naïve picture that I have in mind, where you have the >>> hypergraph, you update, it’s a discrete updating… Can I think of the graph >>> at any one update as space and the update itself as time, or is that too >>> simple-minded? >>> >>> 0:42:35.3 SW: Okay, so it gets a little complicated. And in fact, the >>> complexity that arises is quantum mechanics, I think. And so it’s, in a >>> sense, you try and make it that simple and you… Okay, so the basic point >>> is, the rule says if you have a lump of atoms of space that are connected >>> in this way, transform it into a lump that’s connected in this other way, >>> and it… Basically the rule just says that’s what you do. It doesn’t say >>> where you do it, it doesn’t say when you do it, it’s just any time there’s >>> a lump that looks like this, you can transform it into a lump that looks >>> like that. >>> >>> 0:43:11.0 SW: And so those transformations can be happening all over this >>> hypergraph. And so it is not at all obvious that… That is, the only thing >>> that’s defined is these can happen. The question of when they happen, what >>> counts as the sort of simultaneity surface, what counts is that moment in >>> time, is something that’s really in the eye of the observer. >>> >>> 0:43:31.7 SC: Okay. But the updated graph is supposed to represent >>> spacetime and the things within it, or is it a more subtle map there? >>> >>> 0:43:37.9 SW: No, no. So at any given… What’s happening is this graph is >>> getting updated, and there are lots of little places where it can get >>> updated. And you can say, okay, I’m going to consider the graph with this >>> collection of updates having been done. I’m going to consider that as time >>> T equals 0, let’s say. And then another situation you’re going to say, now, >>> I’m going to say this collection of updates is time T equals 1, for >>> example. And at each one of those time slices, at each one of those sort >>> of… Well, in the language of physics, spacelike hypersurfaces, that >>> represents an instantaneous structure of space. But it is somewhat >>> arbitrary what you consider to be this instantaneous structure of space, >>> just as it is in general relativity. >>> >>> 0:44:26.9 SC: Well, sure, right. I mean, that’s very familiar from general >>> relativity, but I’m just saying is the collection of the whole shebang >>> spacetime, and the things within it? >>> >>> 0:44:35.0 SW: No. It’s just space. A single hypergraph, a single… >>> >>> 0:44:37.6 SC: No, the collection of all the updated hypergraphs, that’s >>> what I’m asking. >>> >>> 0:44:40.2 SW: Oh, yeah, yeah. Right. The sequence of updates, the >>> hypergraph together with all its updates is supposed to be spacetime. And >>> one of the things that is interesting and non-trivial here is most >>> traditional views of physics have thought of space and time as being the >>> same kind of thing. In this model they’re really not. >>> >>> 0:45:00.0 SC: Sure. >>> >>> 0:45:00.0 SW: Space is the extent of the spatial hypergraph. Time is the >>> computational process of updating this hypergraph. So time is the >>> progression of a computation. Space is just, oh, you follow these >>> connections in the hypergraph. And so that makes it not at all obvious that >>> you’re going to get things like relativity out of the model, because one is >>> breaking apart the traditional connection between space and time. >>> """ >>> >>> Anyway, I hope including the transcript here was not too boring. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jon >>> >>> [0] >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.vox.com%2ffeatures%2f2019%2f11%2f11%2f18273141%2fpostmodernism-donald-trump-lyotard-baudrillard&c=E,1,ahdTt6nP47GbaBJ90kU1lQO4yUvUigOWS9csGb9f5n1WFJj_gaQ952opBZAGhJEABIvVUFVaN-fLwkvWULgVdpTMG_WnEM4armYfvnWD-UPv0TNcGYYTTyEm&typo=1 >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.vox.com%2ffeatures%2f2019%2f11%2f11%2f18273141%2fpostmodernism-donald-trump-lyotard-baudrillard&c=E,1,Dedc_RjDT-6nye7iob5tpVuA-rSbnmEIHrOAB2LvmCD9TuH1-_5p_nGJt0xDwkSrFy42do9SSUhiMWu71P3ddNwCBlH4sSwhO6UbQzRjlcf9CL6I&typo=1> >>> >>> [1] The other part is that this considerable body of work was the >>> result of serious thought by powerful thinkers. Discounting the whole >>> body of literature out of hand produces red flags for me. >>> >>> [2] >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.preposterousuniverse.com%2fpodcast%2f2021%2f07%2f12%2f155-stephen-wolfram-on-computation-hypergraphs-and-fundamental-physics&c=E,1,31db7DLEaS1uleDJM8sIWqdCYrOfXi5ZiJkRhW829yXxami8wCe7Zx2Ti0rti0wgof0HtNpNmKfcBQPpdkj-UlD6KSd9cXkerVe8Exl1J7P7U_5aDZCeXDCM2901&typo=1 >>> >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.preposterousuniverse.com%2fpodcast%2f2021%2f07%2f12%2f155-stephen-wolfram-on-computation-hypergraphs-and-fundamental-physics&c=E,1,dJltFF11UE8ZgX4prFko8UhRvFHLWsV48B4b8y2I_CxzJTUWQLbMJYKEqCHxph7V9q0eFdXd_cOG8fndDmWaC2mVKYcQQcdtvxcCD-2ZnaOzC15xJttDqQ,,&typo=1> >>> >> >> > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,5TTd4qeIs3Sh7Binx9M3Hy5JXsF7anXRAgpVywtJY3aDBAqwlRmRHbkZ9RiMaXeCOY7_N-jxElWxga5W6w7F4NCW-sm0tbLipwHk2HHB&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,IDtIwkAHbAICdflrweLdRyp4ZE970pF9iCxkdfuNE567LBFSDa5V7JhviwGcHvLWj1nh4tedpRBbxH5wFgukqjYjPFBPXSXsK3SAePJUm4o,&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
