Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote: Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that very question. I currently do not believe that any type of gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova) accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that direction. But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and I further believe that our entire universe is a rather improbable but possible collection of virtual particles. Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti- particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I think of this second type of virtual particles to be a localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100% nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of zero energy. Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time and matter/energy as being `universally localized' expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure. For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking' phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is only measurable within its own framework against something that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the context of infinity it never really existed, because an equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That thought is quite difficult to fully explain. And I've certainly been wrong before! But the thought of virtual particles appearing and disappearing (and so on the average never having existed) affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary of our universe in order to explain our universe. Ron McFarland
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text John - Original Message - From: Ron McFarland To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote: Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes [RMcF]: Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that very question. I currently do not believe that any type of gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova) accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that direction. [JM]: Agree, but it is a great idea and many awards, tenures, prixes were accelerated with it. Hubble was a genius, just did not consider other (less plausible?) explanations for the redshift than the fashionable optical Dopler. So you don't believe the 'real', only the 'virtual' which shows appreciation in imgination. (Read on) [RMcF]: But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and I further believe that our entire universe is a rather improbable but possible collection of virtual particles. Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti- particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I think of this second type of virtual particles to be a localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think... [JM]: If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes it already into "somethingness" . [JMcF]: of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100% nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of zero energy. [JM]: Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only? Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism? [RMcF]: Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time and matter/energy as being `universally localized' expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure. For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking' phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is only measurable within its own framework against something that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the context of infinity it never really existed, because an equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That thought is quite difficult to fully explain. And I've certainly been wrong before! But the thought of virtual particles appearing and disappearing (and so on the average never having existed) affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary of our universe in order to explain our universe. [JM]: I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs, i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries of our universe. The dissipating "stress-seeds", however,, are called 'energy' in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy startup and
Re: Tegmark is too physics-centric
I deliberately leave vague what is in the theory of the mind, but simply assume a small number of things about consciousness: 1) That there is a linear dimension called (psycholgical) time, in which the conscious mind find itself embedded 2) The observations are a form of a projection from the set of subsets of possibilities onto the same set. We identify a QM state with a subset of possibilities. 3) The Kolmogorov probability axioms 4) The anthropic principle 5) Sets of observers are measurable Also I assume the existance of the set of all descriptions (which I call the Schmidhuber ensemble, but perhaps more accurately should be called the Schmidhuber I ensemble to distance it from later work of his). This is roughly equivalent to your Arithmetic Realism, but probably not identical. It is the form I prefer philosophically. (I think this is the exhaustive set of assumptions - but I'm willing to have other identified) I only treat continuous time in Occams razor (hence the differential equation) however I do reference the theory of timescales which would provide a way of extending this to other types of time (discrete, rationals etc). In any case, contact with standard QM is only achieved for continuous time. The justification for assuming time is that one needs time in order to appreciate differences - and differences are the foundation of information - so in order to know anything at all, one needs to appreciate differences hence the need for a time dimension. Note - computationalism requires time in order to compute mind - therefore the assumption of time is actually a weaker assumption than computationalism. In terms of the above assumptions, 1) is a consequence of computationalism, which I take is a basis of your theory (although I've never understood how computationalism follows from COMP). 2) corresponds to your 1-3 distinction. Indeed I refer to your work as justification for assuming the projection postulate. 3) Causes some people problems - however I notes that some others start from the Kolmogorov probability axioms also. 4) I know the Anthropic principle causes you problems - indeed I can only remark that it is an empirical fact of our world, and leave it as a mystery to be solved later on. 5) Measurability of observers. This is the part that was buried in the derivation of linearity of QM, that caused you (and me too) some difficulty in understanding what is going on. I spoke to Stephen King on the phone yesterday, and this was one point he stumbled on also. Perhaps this is another mystery like the AP, but appears necessary to get the right answer (ie QM !) Of course a more detailed theory of the mind should give a more detailed description of physics. For example - we still don't know where 3+1 spacetime comes from, or why everything appears to be close to Newtonian dynamics. Stephen King is cooking up some more ideas in this line which seems interesting... Cheers On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:55:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: At 09:19 25/02/04 +1100, Russell Standish wrote: I think that psychological time fits the bill. The observer needs a a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between states. OK. That move makes coherent your attempt to derive physics, and makes it even compatible with the sort of approach I advocate, but then: would you agree that you should define or at least explain what is the psychological time. More generally: What is your psychology or your theory of mind? This is (imo) unclear in your Occam Paper (or I miss something). I find that assuming time, and the applicability of differential equation (especially with respect to a psychological time) is quite huge. Bruno Physical time presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in Occam. It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences, isn't it? Cheers On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:11:07PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Russell, Let me try to be a little more specific. You say in your Occam paper at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html The first assumption to be made is that observers will find themselves embedded in a temporal dimension. A Turing machine requires time to separate the sequence of states it occupies as it performs a computation. Universal Turing machines are models of how humans compute things, so it is possible that all conscious observers are capable of universal computation. Yet for our present purposes, it is not necessary to assume observers are capable of universal computation, merely that observers are embedded in time. Are you meaning physical time, psychological time, or just a (linear) order? I am just trying to have a better understanding. --
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote: Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text John Mine be not teachings, but only musings. Your thoughts impress me as fully 180 to those musings and I am not so sure that either of our musings are lacking in substantial basis of experiment! If you just think about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes it already into somethingness. I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists does so because the universe is so constructed as to have made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in order for something to be true or false. Imagining the number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute. Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to get started. Do you assign that to outside factors only? Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism? No, I've not meant to infer that the self is the only reality, nor do I mean to infer that values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. But yes, I did speculate to outside factors; I impute to the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe (the nothingness). Zero energy does not rule out perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those perturbations cease to exist. The difficult thing to confer is the thought that space/time and matter/energy are 2 different things, unrelated to each other, and both are constrained within the boundary of the perturbation. The other side of the boundary, the domain of zero energy, seeks for the perturbation to cease existence; it seeks for the virtual particles to annihilate so that the average condition of zero energy is maintained over eternity. But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability). I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs, i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries of our universe. That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe? What causes existence of stress-seeds? The dissipating stress-seeds, however, are called 'energy' in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy startup and only the endup is such when universe also disappears in the Plenitude. What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet understand why you disagree, as those questions are not resolved to my benefit. Ron McFarland === The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole (John Holland) ===
