Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
It's self-evident that everyone has a present moment, which they will all agree is now. It's also self-evident that they have a current position, which everyone will tell you is here. Hence everyone is at the same time, and in the same place. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't. How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Oops apologies to Jason - great minds etc! I should have read to the end of the thread before I posted... but the question stands, regardless. On 29 December 2013 23:34, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't. How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic process? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,
On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines, Who wrote this? *any* ideally correct machines is unable to recognize the fact that they are machines. Bruno I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect on their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact. I agree that there is an intrinsic limit to Strong AI, but I think that the limit is at the starting gate. Since consciousness is the embodiment of uniqueness and unrepeatability, there is no almost conscious. It doesn't matter how much the artist in the painting looks like he is really painting himself in the mirror, or how realistic Escher makes the staircase look, those realities are forever sculpted in theory, not in the multisense realism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:24, Jason Resch wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that randomness is the lack of any governing deterministic equations when the mini-spacetimes that emerge from quantum events have be aligned due to linking at common events. I have not, but my point is there is already a form of randomness we know of that does not need quarum mechanics, indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno). Well, thanks. Sometimes I credit Everett, but Everett still assumes physicalism and QM, and doesn't see that if comp is used (as it is used by him), then the comp phenomenology has to justify the wave itself. He has not seen that classical arithmetic implements already the 1-indeterminacy, without any use of QM. This I think is new indeed. It leads to a MW interpretation, made by the numbers, of arithmetic itself. The 1-indeterminacy is a classical cognitive phenomenon, but in Everett it is still only a quantum one. I discovered the 1-indeterminacy by looking at amoebas, and studying molecular biology, well before QM. QM will make me doubt of mechanism until I discovered Everett. Like many, I do have been brainwashed with the collapse. I certainly agree that Everett subjective indeterminacy is a particular (quantum) form of the comp first person indeterminacy. Not all Everettian agree with this, note, but most do. Formally it is not the same, as a classical self-duplication is not, a priori, a quantum superposition. They might become one when in front of the UD, but that is what needs more verification and tests. Bruno Jason Separate spaces are dimensionally independent. When they merge via common dimensional events there can be no deterministic alignment thus randomness arises. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic. As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply is no true classical level randomness. Have you gotten to step 3 in the UDA yet? It explains how true randomness can emerge without assuming QM. Jason There is plenty of non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level. At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending on the information structures involved. To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the code and/or data. Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to randomness and fails Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus
mathematical truth captures the facts concerning whether or not
any program executes forever, and what all of its intermediate
states are.
this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.
It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.
Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I
don't see how it can arise in arithmetic.
?
It appears in all numbers written in any base. Most numbers are
already random (even incompressible).
I guess you know that.
I agree most numbers are incompressible, but I was using random in a
different sense than the unpredictability of the next digits of the
number given previous ones.
OK. But in the iterated self-duplication, both form of indeterminacy
can be mixed.
In the phi_i(j) in the UD, randomness can appear in the many j used
as input, as we usually dovetail on the function of one variable.
(but such input can easily be internalized in 0-variable programs).
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want
generate only that numbers.
Right, all the random numbers are there, the question is how to
throw the dart so that it lands on one.
Of course. And here the 1-indetermlinacy provides one answer.
but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1,
2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite
incompressible strings, and even all the infinite one (for the 1p
view, notably).
I think we are using the term in a slightly different sense.
Certainly any number in the range 1 - N can be considered as a
random number in that range (as it is a candidate to be output by
some RNG), but the problem is selecting it in a random (in the sense
of not-predictable) way.
Yes. here I just point on the fact that random number (with random
digits) exists.
There was a joke cartoon of some computer code:
int getRandomNumber()
{
return 4; // this number was determined by a random die roll
}
Lol
Close to my favorite infinite binary random sequence:
...
The term random is very large.
While a number can be interpreted as random once, it might not be
the second time.
While selecting and using all possibilities is arguably a way to
achieve randomness (unpredictibilty), (from some points of view) it
is often not practical nor useful. Consider encrypting a message
with all possible keys and sending the recipient all possible
messages.
Not only might you need to send 2^256 possible ciphertexts but any
eavesdropper could use the first possible key to decrypt it. This
achieves randomness from the POV of the cipher, but not for the user
or the attackers.
In quantum cryptography this is essentially what is done, but it
requires that the sender and reciever (and attackers) be duplicated
for each possible key. So they need to be embedded in that larger
program that provides all possible inputs for it to seem random.
This is just FPI though, is it not?
Yes.
Bruno
Jason
In that (trivial) sense, arithmetic contains a lot of 3p
randomness, even perhaps too much. Then 1p randomeness appears too,
by the 1p indeterminacy (and that one is in the eyes of the machine).
Chaitin's results can also explain why we cannot filter out that 3p
randomness from arithmetic.
Bruno
What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a
regular random number and not some random number prefixed on a
real halting program?
It don't see how it makes a difference.
Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?
I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language.
I will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted,
execute one instruction of
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved. OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that physics is a branch of arithmetic. What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR, or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp. Bruno On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is many-world. If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic. With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local physical cosmos. Bruno On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:16, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work? In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete physical reality, in some local sense. Could this Turing universal/sigma_1-complete in a local sense be the exact criteria required to define the observations 3- experiences of individuals or is it the 1-experiences of individuals (observers) in keeping with the definition of an observer as the intersection of infinitely many computations? I think the UDA answers this question. You need Turing universality, but also the FPI, which in some sense comes from mechanism, but not necessarily universality, which has, here, only an indirect relevance in the definition of what is a computation in arithmetic. I suspect that the FPI results from the underlap or failure to reach exact overlap between observers. As if a small part of the computations that are observers is not universal. This would effectively induce FPI as any one observer would be forever unable to exactly match its experience of being in the world with that of another. , We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality). Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such primitiveness cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness. It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds. UDA formulates the problem, and show how big the mind-body problem is, even before tackling the other minds problem. But something is said. In fact it is easy to derive from the UDA the following assertions: comp + explicit non-solipsism entails sharable many words or a core linear physical reality. I do not comprehend this. It is easy for us to see that solipsism is false, ? but how can a computation see anything? I do not understand how it is that you can claim that computations will not be solipsistic by default. The 1p is solipsist, but not in a public way, just in the trivial way that nobody can see that solipsism is false, as the dream argument justifies. Solipsism is irrefutable, and hopefully false. Now, if you remember the definition of first person plural (which is just when different people enter the same annihilation-reconstitution box), if we add non solipsism, it means that when machine interact, they share the computations. So, the only way to avoid solipsism in comp, is that the measure is sharable by interacting machine, and so they have to live in a quantum-lile many worlds. But comp in fact has to justify the non-solipsism, and this is begun through the nuance Bp p versus Bp Dt. Normally the linearity should allow the first person plural in the Dt nuance case. Exactly! I am looking forward to the explanation of this nuance Bp p versus Bp Dt. :- Keep in mind that UDA does not solve the problem, but formulate it. AUDA go more deep in a solution, and the shape of that solution (like UDA actually) provides already information contradicting the Aristotelian theology (used by atheists and the main part of institutionalized abramanic religion). Sure. My main worry is that your wonderful result obtains at too high a price: the inability to even model interactions and time. If you show that, you extend the UDA in a full proof refutation of comp. Good luck! I thought this would be easy, but the simplicity of this is counterbalanced by the self-referential constraints. On p-sigma_1, we get already three arithmetical (quantum) quantizations. Keep in mind that I offer a problem, not a solution (although I offer a path toward it, and some shaping of the possible solutions, notably that they belong to (neo)platonism and refute Aristotle). Bruno Bruno Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic). The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is derived from basically just Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) or just x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is
accessible. How?
The space of all programs that do not halt is not Turing accessible.
The space of all programs that do halt is not Turing accessible.
The space of all programs (that do halt of do not halt) *is*
accessible.
Could you elaborate on this claim. I wish to be sure that I
understand it. Is it really a space?
It is a recursively enumerable set.
Would it have metrics and topological properties?
As a set, you can endow it with some structure, if you have the
motivation.
All what happen is that we have no general systematic,
computational, means to distinguish the programs that halt from the
programs that does not halt (on their inputs), and that is why the
universal dovetailer must *dovetail* on the executions of all
programs.
Not having a general systematic, computational, means to
distinguish.. has not stopped Nature.
Nor the FPI. Right.
She solves the problem by the evolution of physical worlds.
That's too quick, especially that we don't assume nature.
I propose that physical worlds ARE a form of non-universal
computation.
Then brain and computers cannot exist in those physical world.
I still think that the UD lives only in Platonia and is timeless and
static.
That's correct.
Only its projections (to use Plato's cave metaphor) are run as
physical worlds
OK. The FPI projections. But they are not run, only selected. The
computation are run, not the projection from inside.
Bruno
if they can survive the challenge of mutual consistency.
Bruno
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted,
execute one instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus
mathematical truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any
program executes forever, and what all of its intermediate states
are. If these statements are true independently of you and me, then
the executions of these programs are embedded in arithmetical truth
and have a platonic existence. The first, second, 10th,
1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and
all the conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write
books on consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet,
etc. as part of the execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination,
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever, and what all of its intermediate states are. this also captures every instance of random numbers as well. It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth. Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I don't see how it can arise in arithmetic. ? It appears in all numbers written in any base. Most numbers are already random (even incompressible). I guess you know that. In the phi_i(j) in the UD, randomness can appear in the many j used as input, as we usually dovetail on the function of one variable. (but such input can easily be internalized in 0-variable programs). OK, I must agree, but can you see how this removes our ability to use the natural ordering of the integers as an explanation of the appearance of time? Of the physical time? yes, that is right. That is a consequence of the delay invariance of the FPI. But we can still use it indirectly. It is part of the additive-multiplicative structure of the numbers that we assume (through the numbers laws). Since there are multiple and equivalent (as to their properties) sequences of integers that have very different orders relative to each other, if we use these ordering as our time we would have a different dimension of time for every one! ? On the contrary. As you just said, the appearance of time is not dependent on that order. For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, and even all the infinite one (for the 1p view, notably). In that (trivial) sense, arithmetic contains a lot of 3p randomness, even perhaps too much. Then 1p randomeness appears too, by the 1p indeterminacy (and that one is in the eyes of the machine). Chaitin's results can also explain why we cannot filter out that 3p randomness from arithmetic. Have you had any more thoughts on the book keeping problem we have discussed in the past? Can you remind me? Thanks. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:43, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi LizR and Jason, Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise oracles is cheating! But it exist in arithmetic. Subtracting it would be cheating. the silmple counting algorith generates all random finite strings (random in the strong Chaitin sense). Almost all numbers are random, when written in some base. And you can define the notion of base *in* arithmetic, so they exist in all models of arithmetic. We can't subtract them. With respect: No! We cannot wait forever (literally) to obtain consistency of our data bases in the face of the inability to know in advance the arrival time of messages in the network. The fact that arithmetic contains all finite (even the random ones) strings is an ontological claim. I have no problem with the claim. My problem is that we cannot reason as if time does not exist when we are trying to construct real computers. We have to use different ideas, for example: competition for resources! Platonic computers do not compete for resources nor change. They are static and fixed eternally... In God's eyes. We already know that from inside, except for the measure problem which remains to be solved, things look very dynamical and changing all the times. Bp p is already a logic of (subjective) time. Bp Dt gives a quantum logic, Bp Dt p gives a subjective or intuitionist quantum logic full of percepts including a time which can be felt. It is a trivial exercise to show that all diophantine approximation of anything physical is emulated in arithmetic, so Platonia contains all possible competition on all conceivable resources, and actually anything that you can live, or not live, like the collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda is emulated statically in arithmetic, and lived temporally by its emulated persons. Platonia is static from outside, not from inside. Arithmetic becomes a block universe(s), although it is more like a block-mindscape or a block multi-dreams. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:10, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point. In real time ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is emergent. Physical times and subjective time emerge. OK. But let us be honest, comp assumes already a sort of time, through the natural order: à, 1, 2, 3, ... Then you have all UD-time step of the computations emulated by the UD: phi_444(6) first step ... phi_444(6) second step ... ... (meaning greater delay in the UD-time steps). ph_444(6) third step ... ... ... ph_444(6) fourth step ... ... ph_444(6) fifth step etc. This would explain the sequencing of events aspect of time, but it does nothing to address the concurrency problem. Nor dark matter, nor visible matter, nor That is the problem I offer to you, as a result of the translation of he mind-body problem in arithmetic, enforced by the comp hypothesis. We need a theory of time that has an explanation of both sequencing and transition. I wish you could study GR, say from Penrose's math book, and Prof. Hitoshi Kitada's Local Time interpretation of QM. I did, and we have already discussed this. That can be used to progress, may be. If you find that it would be very nice. Right now, we need to solve much more simpler problem in logic to proceed in a way such that we keep into account the communicable/non- communicable self-referential constraints, in the way imposed by the FPI. It gives a nice set of concepts that help solve the problem of time: there is no such thing as a global time; there is only local time. Local for each individual observer. Synchronizations of these local times generates the appearance of global time for a collection that is co-moving or (equivalently) have similar inertial frames. That's physics. But physics is given by a precise equation in comp. You are free to use *any* papers and results to solve that equation. You need to study logic to make the link properly. (Of course you can also do physics, without tackling the comp mind- body problem. That's what physicists do since a long time) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:32, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. At last No, I just quoted myself there. It was my previous answer. ... a straight answer, the answer is 1. So there is only one unique 1-view from the 1-view on planet Earth right now; In the 1-view, yes. in the 3-view, no. There are 7 billions (assuming a mono-universe, to simplified). that is to say if a one to one correspondence was attempted between the infinite set of UNIQUE integers and the set of all the UNIQUE 1- views from the 1-view on planet Earth right now only ONE such pairing can be made. From each 1-view. That's right. So the set of all UNIQUE one views of the one view has only 1 element in it. Well who is this one, who is he, what's his name? I'd love to meet him (or her), can you introduce me? Look in a mirror. You know better your 1-view than anything else. I don't need to present it! infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Yet another straight answer, this time the answer is infinity; unfortunately it's a very different answer to the exact same question. So is the answer 1 or infinity or your previous answer of 7 billion? It is 1 from the personal point of view. It is 7 billions, in the 3-view of those 1-view. That explains the 1-indeterminacy, but in a misleading way, as it seems to use the ASSA, where comp needs the RSSA. The probability makes sense only in term of relative self-duplication, and here we might think we give sense to what is the probablity that I am myself among all humans, which does not make sense, or at least not in the non controversial way when self-duplication is taken into account. OK? No, that is very far from OK. ? So what about step 7? I don't see why anybody should read step 7 of your proof when it has already been demonstrated that you throw around terms like the 1-view from the 1-view that you can't put a number to. I did it often. You have to read the posts. If you can't put a number to it you have no clear understanding of it. I have, so please, proceed, or explain what is wrong. You seem annoyed by the fact that I provides always two answer (1 and è billions), but that is just because I make clear the need to distinguish the 1p from the 3p views, as the indeterminacy bears on the 1p views. If there is no indeterminacy, provide the prediction algorithm, and show me that it will convince everyone, which includes all possible self-copies. Only then you can say that step 3 is refuted. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Computed how? By what? I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial computation. Assuming comp, there is not much choice in the matter. That is the point. I will agree. Above the substitution level: interaction between universal machines, including one apparently sustained from below the substitution level by the statistical interference between infinities of universal machines getting your actual states. But the actual states are not just some random string from my point of view! Nor for me. They are state brought by some computation above the S- level, and supported by infinitely many computation below the S-level. The result is indeterminate, but not itself random. In The WM- duplication, the result is indeterminate or random, but W or M themselves are not random. The very fact that we can (somewhat) communicate is an important fact. There is a selection mechanism: interaction. That's part of the problem. Showing this. I don't know how to avoid those infinities without reifying some God- of-the-gap or Matter-of-the-gap notion to singularize a computation for consciousness, but if that is needed for consciousness, then comp is false. Umm, that is a false choice! The FPI is good enough to do the job without resorting to a 'god/matter in the gap solution. The singularization of consciousness is easy, as you have shown. No it is not! There is a lot of work to be done before we have a realm in which words like interaction can make sense. It is the concurrent interaction problem that is not easy. So let us concentrate on what is more easy first. I cannot exactly predict your actions and thus can only bet on your future states, but I can constrain your possible choices of action with my physical behaviors even if the physical world is an illusion. The fact that it is a common and persistent illusion makes it a ground of commonality from which we can distinguish ourselves 3- p wise from each other. We cannot use physics. True, you still survive with a digital brain, but no more through comp, it is true from comp + some explicit magic to make disappear the other realities. You get an irrefutable form of cosmic solipsism. There is no magic here, there is the SAT problem. Boolean algebras do not automatically pop out with global consistency over their arguments/propositions. One has to actually physically run a physical world to know what it will do. Claiming that it exists in Platonia is not a solution. No, it is a problem. And thanks to the work done, it is (with comp) a problem in arithmetic. That is the result. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jesse, Sure the experiment that proves they are in the same present moment is they just turn around and shake hands, they just turn around and compare clocks to see whether they read the same or not. How difficult is that to comprehend? It's what people do every day of their lives. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:37:03 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. What is experimentally proven is that two clocks A and B can show different times at the same coordinate time in some inertial frame--and coordinate time itself is defined using some *other* set of physical clocks besides A and B. For example, if we say that at t=5 in our inertial frame A showed a time of 20 seconds and B showed a time of 30 seconds, what this really means is that A was next to a clock C1 when A read 20 and C1 read 5, and B was next to a clock C2 when B read 30 and C2 read 5, with C1 and C2 being at rest and synchronized in our inertial frame, so that their readings are used to *define* coordinate time in this frame. All experimentally verifiable statements about time are defined in terms of clock readings of some kind. If you think that your statements about P-time are experimentally verifiable, but you think the experiment in question does *not* involve any sort of physical clock (even a naturally-occurring clock like the rotation of the Earth), then can you describe what the experiment would be that shows the two observers to be in the same present moment? Jesse On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Pierz, The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their lives to share the same present moment with others. Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-time, they measure clock time. :-) P-time doesn't fail. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality manifests as the present moment Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back to the point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. As the P-time radial dimension extends happening occurs within the present moment and the current state of the universe in continually computed. This is experienced as 'proper time' which is always the same no matter at what rate clock time is running. The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega, the curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius = P-time dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be? Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers who aren't me then of course they seem to share the same moment, regardless of how far apart they are. To say they don't share the same moment would be like saying that one exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, right? But this is really begging the question about what a point in time is. You seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-time'). How need to define what you mean by sharing the same moment and you need to show how it is to be measured. I submit that the only method of making such a determination is by means of something that measures clock time. For example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show that the observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of events. In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to use observers or people as the objects said to share the same common present because observers persist in time and this makes things less clear. Instead, you should ask the same question about a momentary event like a pulse of light from a
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. ? That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/ environment. It vindicates the many-worlds. Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product. That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the superposition. But that is ad hoc, and contradict the idea that physicists obeys to physical laws. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never disappeared, and spread at light speed. QM-without-collapse = MW. Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear. Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less plausible. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence of states, with the right probabilities, and for this you need the complete run of the UD, because your next moment is determioned by the FPI on all computations. That's a point that bothers me. It seems that you require a completed, realized uncountable inifinity. Not in the ontology, where I can use only 0 and its successors, and the numbers laws (+ and *). What the theology and physics need from inside is indeed not bound- able, and is bigger than anything we can conceive. That is in part a reason why I use the term theology. from inside arithmetic, we are eventually confronted with some thing very big. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:19, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote: I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure of all things. What is his claim? I am not familiar with it. God created the Integers, all else is the invention of man. man is a measure of all things is a quote from a french philosopher (I just forget right now his name) itself taken from a greek general, which cut the feet or head of all soldier having not the right size (!). (Sorry for those vague memories, learn this in highschool) Man is the measure of all things. is usually attributed to Protagoras (a student of Plato). Ah! Thanks. Protagoras is also the one asking if virtue are teachable. I define a virtue Protagorean when it is not teachable by words, but still by practice/example. Procrustes, who stretched or chopped guests to fit his iron bed, was a metal smith, not a general. OK, I remember! Thanks. Now, of course, comp saves Kronecker from anthropomorphism, as with comp we can say that: God created the integers, all else is the invention of ... integers. Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk --- Kronecker Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Zahlenwerk :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! But decoherence also falsifies MW. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. It's a description of a physical object in human math. Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be asked about a physical object. Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background space common to all events, it's a description of how space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with another particle's wavefunction. Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events. So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational space. That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent model. You really need to understand it. Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime emerges from, is actually created by, quantum events in computational information space, he followed it off into never never land... Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. ? That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/ environment. It vindicates the many-worlds. Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product. That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the superposition. But that is ad hoc, and contradict the idea that physicists obeys to physical laws. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never disappeared, and spread at light speed. QM-without-collapse = MW. Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear. Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less plausible. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Each particular language will have some exception on the incompressibility issue. That should be part of the role of the variable constant in the general universal definition. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Liz, Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:34:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't. How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Jason, You agree No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the only reality. OK, that's immense progress we are making! So, the present moment does exist, and we agree on that. So now the only issue is that you presumably believe in block time, that all other moments of time actually exist. If you do then please explain to me why the present moment seems so real and privileged and all other moments don't? And if all other moments in time actually exist do you understand how many laws of physics that violates? For one thing the actual mass and energy of all those moments must also exist which means there is an enormous violation of the conservation of mass-energy. If you believe in block time you have a lot of explaining away to do! Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:18:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Pierz, The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their lives to share the same present moment with others. Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-time, they measure clock time. :-) P-time doesn't fail. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality manifests as the present moment No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the only reality. Jason Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back to the point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. As the P-time radial dimension extends happening occurs within the present moment and the current state of the universe in continually computed. This is experienced as 'proper time' which is always the same no matter at what rate clock time is running. The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega, the curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius = P-time dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be? Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers who aren't me then of course they seem to share the same moment, regardless of how far apart they are. To say they don't share the same moment would be like saying that one exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, right? But this is really begging the question about what a point in time is. You seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U-time'). How need to define what you mean by sharing the same moment and you need to show how it is to be measured. I submit that the only method of making such a determination is by means of something that measures clock time. For example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show that the observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of events. In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to use observers or people as the objects said to share the same common present because observers persist in time and this makes things less clear. Instead, you should ask the same question about a momentary event like a pulse of light from a diode. Do the diodes themselves share the same present moment? Yes, whatever that means! Do the flashes occur simultaneously? Well you know the answer depends on the inertial frame of reference. Substituting a mental event (the thought I am here now) for the light flash, we can see that two thinkers cannot have that thought at an objectively identical moment. All events can be timed using clocks, which after all cold be anything that has a regular cycle. There is nothing in space-time, including mental events, that is not an event that can be timed in this manner. What is confusing you is merely the persistence of the observer and the impossibility of imagining that both
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum! Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2013/12/131205142218.htm#! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:40, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, when you wrote: ...arithmetic number's dreams = physics OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science... for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!) incoherent. That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist' seems overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short with his remark that first: we need an identification for whatever we call: god. He is right. We need some definition, or some semi-axiomatic. I have often explained what I mean by the term God. It is the transcendental reality responsible for our consciousness, and experiences. I can add typical axioms, like the fact that is has no name, and that shit happens when we invoke it, etc. The point of the discussion is that we might change the definition, in different ways possible. Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL stuff we may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them. Well, in science, no conclusion is ever final, be it on God, the moon, the boson or even the numbers. We can just hope people agrees enough with a theory to be interested in its theorems. Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism). Yes, I think that science is agnostic on all ontological commitment, beyond the terms it assumes for the need of solving a problem. My idrentification for what many people call god is known to this list: infinite complexity - not better than anyone else's: it is MY belief. OK. No problem. Arithmetical truth is already infinitely complex, for any machines, so with comp, your definition can satisfy the axioms above, and the machines! Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN stuff, Even Mammal stuff. Even Earthly creature. I fact, I am afraid we borrow already all prejudices and limitations of the Löbian entities, in fact of all finite (locally) machines ... humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer to some universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to our human ways of thinking. This might be just adjusted for John-Mikean thinking. In fact it is because we adjust our theories that they can be shown wrong, and then we change them. You cannot use human to limit our knowledge a priori, or you just show a prejudice against all humans. All we, or any creature, can do, is to make clear the theory, and the means to test it. If wrong we change it. Only bad philosophers pretend to know the truth, or to have final conclusion or solution. Then I like to quote Chardin, saying that we are not human beings having from time to time divine experiences, but we are divine beings having from time to time human experiences. Bruno On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by incompleteness). True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put: arithmetic number's dreams = physics OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science. Bruno Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 28 Dec 2013, at 23:15, John Mikes wrote: List: Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for R A N D O M? (my non- Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it exbeliebig = kind of: whatever I like) My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be: non- explainable by circumstances leading to it, what is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain and that would be the end of randomity. Unless we have a explanation of what we cannot explain it. That is the case in the self-duplication. We can predict that, whoever copy I will feel to be, I will not being able to explain why I feel that one in particular, nor anyone can ever explain it. But this is a first person, subjective, but objectively real, type of randomness. Then incompressibility is also useful to define an objective form of randomness, provable in some case. Bruno I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the take any number - however many of these are joking. I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the circumstances of the topic. John Mikes On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic. As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of non- computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level. At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending on the information structures involved. To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the code and/or data. Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to randomness and fails Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Pierz, A lot of meat in your post. Thanks! I'll answer most of your questions Yes, observers observe they are in the same present moment by the simultaneity of events. Exactly, but the important point is that is the simultaneity of actual events, not of clock time readings. Observers can simultaneously shake hands even if their clocks have different clock times (their clocks are not simultaneous). Actual versus clock time simultaneity. Two completely different things! That's the absolutely critical point to understanding my thesis. ACTUAL simultaneity (2 observers shaking hands) IS self-evident. Do you dispute that? You can't... The experiment that proves my thesis is the hand shaking. Absolute incontrovertible proof of actual simultaneity. That is how to operationalize P-time. By actual simultaneity. It CANNOT be measured by clock time as proven above. The P-time now of Caesar is long gone. Unfortunately for you, you can only share the same NOW as Edgar, not Caesar! :-) Yes, P-seconds should be calculable from Omega. Differences from the clock time age of the universe can account for things like inflation, Hubble expansion etc. However please note that the whole notion of 'the ~14.7 billion year age of the universe', of an age of the universe, that is the same for all observers means that cosmology DOES accept the notion of a single common universal present moment since cosmology assumes that age of he universe is going to be the same anywhere in the universe for every observer. That's very important confirmation of the notion of a single common universal present moment. Cosmology accepts my thesis of a common universal present moment of existence. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:35:01 AM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:19:57 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Pierz, The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. How do they observe that they are in the same moment except by the simultaneity of events in their perceived time-space environment? It is self-evident really? It is anything but self-evident that different moments in clock time are the same moment. I don't even know what what means. Sure it's 'self-evident' that the now I experience is present everywhere. But that self-evident truth was qualified by relativity, which was the actual great leap forward in our understanding of time. and experimentally proved again - really? You can't even tell me how to measure P-time so I fail to see how any experiment has or can prove such a thing. If this is physical, scientific theory as opposed to a metaphysical speculation about the eternal Now a la Eckhart Tolle, then you *must* be able to provide some means of measuring your proposed physical quantity or entity. Again I ask: how will you prove this sharing of a moment other than by blustering that it is self-evident? that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their lives to share the same present moment with others. Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P-time, they measure clock time. :-) P-time doesn't fail. The *concept* of P-time fails as far as physics goes, as far as I can tell, because you can't operationalize it. You can only make exasperated noises that no-one else gets it except you despite it's being so obvious. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality manifests as the present moment Fine so far as it goes. The Now is ever-present and unchanging while phenomena, including clocks, move through it as it were. In some sense, all things happen Now and nothing will ever occur anywhere except Now and we all share it. That's the Now of Eckart Tolle's The Power of Now. The problem is when you try to insist that this is a concept relevant to physics. Let me ask: do I share the Now with you as you were an hour ago? Do I share the same now as Caesar at the moment of his death? In the metaphysical sense, maybe. But not in any way that is relevant to physics and measured time. *Which moment are we sharing if not a moment we can measure with a clock? If you just say the current present moment, for goodness sake! you are merely demonstrating that your concept is a tautology. Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 29 Dec 2013, at 00:28, Jesse Mazer wrote: Jason Resch wrote: indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno). I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there can be first-person randomness even in a universe which is deterministic from a third-person perspective (like a universe defined by the universal dovetailer), he just integrates it into the rest of his ideas in a novel way. The first person to discover this idea may be Hugh Everett III, who is quoted in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#6 saying of his interpretation of QM that the formal theory is objectively continuous and causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic (this quote is from 1973, but I suspect one could find quotes from his original 1957 thesis that explicitly or implicitly suggest this idea of subjective randomness despite the determinism of wavefunction evolution governed by the Schroedinger equation). OK. But Everett did not see that we get this from just self- duplication, and that this entails we have a many world interpretation of arithmetic, in which we have to justify the wave and physics. He still has to assume QM to have its sort of subjective probability. The comp FPI is conceptually more general, as it does not assume any physics at all. Everett indeterminacy can be seen as a particular case of FPI, if we assume the wave and if we reify it for consciousness (what UDA) prevents us to do. Bruno Jesse On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that randomness is the lack of any governing deterministic equations when the mini-spacetimes that emerge from quantum events have be aligned due to linking at common events. I have not, but my point is there is already a form of randomness we know of that does not need quarum mechanics, indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno). Jason Separate spaces are dimensionally independent. When they merge via common dimensional events there can be no deterministic alignment thus randomness arises. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic. As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply is no true classical level randomness. Have you gotten to step 3 in the UDA yet? It explains how true randomness can emerge without assuming QM. Jason There is plenty of non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level. At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending on the information structures involved. To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the code and/or data. Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to randomness and fails Edgar -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 02:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense. Computations are not physical. I agree. They are arithmetical notion. But I can't understand what is meant by actions are computation, or reality computes, etc. I have the feeling that you are using the term computation in some non standard sense. This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that 'everything is its computation only, and the computation is the thing'. I have no problem with that, it's a good way to express it. I am not sure. Stephen has already defended the idea that a physical object simulates itself, based on a similar confusion. That does not make sense if we use the terms computation or emulations (exact simulations) with their standard definition in math. The notion of physical computation is worse. It is easy to believe that it exists, like physical computer and brains exist, but it is a hell of a difficulty to define them, and even more so if we want physical computation to be defined without using the mathematical notion of computation. Bruno Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:03:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edgar, Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did you have with this idea? On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Bruno, I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved. OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that physics is a branch of arithmetic. Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as perceptions? Could the perceptions, however they may be define, include some means to distinguish one entity from another within those perceptions. A crude physics theory might be equivalent to some method for an observer to make predictions of the content of its perceptions, assuming some form of memory is possible... What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR, or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp. I do not think that comp can be empirically refuted in the experimental sense of hard science! It addresses questions that are deeper than physics. Bruno On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is many-world. If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic. With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local physical cosmos. Bruno On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 29 Dec 2013, at 11:37, LizR wrote: On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic process? Well, this is just a question of vocabulary, and we have to agree on some definition. Empirically, we know that pi pass the statistical test of normality, and so it is random in that sense (but this is empirical, and the question of pi being normal is an open problem in math). Of course the digit are computable, and so pi is not random, in the incompressibility sense. random is just a fuzzy terms which can have different meaning in different context. Passing normality test is a weak notion of randomness, compatible with computable. Being incompressible is a stronger form of randomness. The second notion implies the first, but the first does not imply the second, like pi illustrates indeed. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I use Platonism, where God == Truth. So God is my dog just took a dump. God is not that much a bad name. It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and wants to use language honestly. Never mind what you write here at least be honest with yourself and ask do I really want to avoid confusion?. Do I really want to use language honestly? If so then it would be better to say it's true that my dog just took a dump. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On Dec 29, 2013, at 4:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic process? The digits themselves are thought to be uniformily distributed, but they are of course completely deterministic, as well as compressible (since a short program can generate them). So it meets at most one of the three definitions for random that I gave. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the exact same probability when you square it. Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence I define a thing as anything observable; it's what most people mean when they say something like concrete reality. rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. I'm just using common parlance. Quantum Mechanics can be formulated in a way that makes no use of wave functions whatsoever, in fact that was the way Heisenberg originally did it. It was only 6 months later that Schrodinger came up with his wave equation. Both methods come up with the exact same probability prediction and which method used in the calculation is entirely a matter of personal taste. And there is no arguing in matters of taste. But this is irrelevant to my points. Your point was everything is a wavefunction and your point was about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You agree No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the only reality. OK, that's immense progress we are making! So, the present moment does exist, and we agree on that. So now the only issue is that you presumably believe in block time, that all other moments of time actually exist. If you do then please explain to me why the present moment seems so real and privileged and all other moments don't? It is kind of like how here seems privledged to me compared to other theres. I realize other theres exist too, and are no less real than the one here I happen to be in. It is only my experience in this location that makes the location feel more real than others. I start from this and extend all the same reasoning to this time vs. other times which I do not happen to be in. And if all other moments in time actually exist do you understand how many laws of physics that violates? None do far as I am aware. Einstein came to believe in eternalism in years following his discovery of relativity. For one thing the actual mass and energy of all those moments must also exist which means there is an enormous violation of the conservation of mass-energy. Energy and mass remain constant from one moment to the next. No energy is created or destroyed in the block view. If you believe in block time you have a lot of explaining away to do! If you have any more questions you think are difficult for blick time to answer I would be happy to see them. Allow me ask you a question about presentism: What evidence is there that past points in time cease to exist? Jason Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:18:50 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Pierz, The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time. It is self-evident and experimentally proved that they can be in the same present moment even if their clock time t values are not simultaneous. And it's not just an event, as some have maintained, its the standard mode of existence of everyone throughout their lives to share the same present moment with others. Clocks? We don't need no stinkin clocks! Clocks don't measure P- time, they measure clock time. :-) P-time doesn't fail. It can't. It is simply impossible for anyone or anything to escape the present moment. That's the basic fact of our existence for goodness sakes! The present moment is the locus, and only locus of reality. Without a present moment there could be no reality. The presence of reality manifests as the present moment No one is denying the reality of the present, just that it is the only reality. Jason Your last paragraph fails because it is all about measuring CLOCK time, not P-time. It's irrelevant to the discussion of P-time. P-time is the radial dimension of our hyperspherical universe back to the point of the big bang. The surface is our 3-dimensional universe in the present moment which is the locus of reality and all that exists. As the P-time radial dimension extends happening occurs within the present moment and the current state of the universe in continually computed. This is experienced as 'proper time' which is always the same no matter at what rate clock time is running. The only way P-time can be measured that I know of is from Omega, the curvature of the universe, from which we can compute the radius = P-time dimension. Anyone know what that equation would be? Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:33:23 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers who aren't me then of course they seem to share the same moment, regardless of how far apart they are. To say they don't share the same moment would be like saying that one exists and the other doesn't at some point in time, right? But this is really begging the question about what a point in time is. You seem to be relying on an intuitive sense of time that is not bound to anything measurable (the hidden point of my tongue-in-cheek 'U- time'). How need to define what you mean by sharing the same moment and you need to show how it is to be measured. I submit that the only method of making such a determination is by means of something that measures clock time. For example, a clock! And you already agree that clocks will show that the observers don't precisely agree about the simultaneity of events. In fact, to make the whole situation clearer, it is better not to use observers
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest that the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has that feels and experiences, it is immaterial, it transcends the physics of this universe, in that it can travel between universes, it is immortal, eternal, and it can even experience reincarnation, ressurection to realms of unlimited freedom (heavens, paradises, nirvana), and can even unite with a superior being (divine union, moksha). In short, many of the mystics and various religious ideas appear to be correct given our current sciebtific understanding, and purely atheistic and materialistic views of science are, as a consequence, wrong. I don't expect you to take all these claims at face value, as each requires substantial explanation. I am, however, in the process of writing a book that explains each of these concepts in more detail and shows exactly how each idea follows durectly from different well- established scientific theories. I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum! Who is to say that souls are not amendble to scientific investigation? Why must all scientific theories necessarily be silent on such matters? Jason Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm# ! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a measurement event. Edgar -- 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, O, for God's sakes. No wonder you believe in block time, MW, the nonexistence of the present moment and the tooth fairy!;-) Just wait till I present my theory of consciousness! Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest that the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has that feels and experiences, it is immaterial, it transcends the physics of this universe, in that it can travel between universes, it is immortal, eternal, and it can even experience reincarnation, ressurection to realms of unlimited freedom (heavens, paradises, nirvana), and can even unite with a superior being (divine union, moksha). In short, many of the mystics and various religious ideas appear to be correct given our current sciebtific understanding, and purely atheistic and materialistic views of science are, as a consequence, wrong. I don't expect you to take all these claims at face value, as each requires substantial explanation. I am, however, in the process of writing a book that explains each of these concepts in more detail and shows exactly how each idea follows durectly from different well-established scientific theories. I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum! Who is to say that souls are not amendble to scientific investigation? Why must all scientific theories necessarily be silent on such matters? Jason Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! http://www.sciencedaily.com/r ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! But decoherence also falsifies MW. Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation. If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the wave, you doubt QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation of QM. It's a description of a physical object in human math. You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for. Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be asked about a physical object. That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable of analysing it. Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what you assume. Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a quantum decision? The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background space common to all events, it's a description of how space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with another particle's wavefunction. That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like explaining gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this. In physics (which I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the mind-body problem). In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion. Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events. So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational space. That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent model. You really need to understand it. Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime emerges from, is actually created by, quantum events in computational information space, he followed it off into never never land... What are your assumptions, and what is your equation or theorem? Bruno Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. ? That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/ environment. It vindicates the many-worlds. Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product. That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the superposition. But that is ad hoc, and contradict the idea that physicists obeys to physical laws. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never disappeared, and spread at light speed. QM-without-collapse = MW. Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear. Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less plausible. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 15:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum! I guess *you* take seriously some theory of soul, to be so sure that it does not exist, or could not have any sense. soul is often used to denote the first person part of the person (owning body (and bodies)). With computationalism, you can somehow save your soul on a disk. Of course, in term of the first person, you only save the abstract ability to manifest yourself in the local environment. The soul is the mental private subjective space. It is also, arguably, the knower. Bruno Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm# ! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I use Platonism, where God == Truth. So God is my dog just took a dump. Oh! I hope your dog is OK. God is not that much a bad name. It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and wants to use language honestly. Never mind what you write here at least be honest with yourself and ask do I really want to avoid confusion?. Yes. In science we have just to agree on axioms, or semi-axioms. Do I really want to use language honestly? If so then it would be better to say it's true that my dog just took a dump. When you say it's true that my dog just took a dump, you tell me something about your dog. When I said God == Truth I said, in a context of TOE search, guided by the comp hypothesis, something on both God and Truth. The nuance will remains, as God = Truth is probably worse than a G* minus G sentence. It is not a theorem of machine, only in his computationalist (yet non computable) meta-theology. Take a machine or number m. I define the theology of m by the set of Gödel numbers of all the true arithmetical sentences having m has parameter (true in the standard model). I define the science of m by the set of Gödel numbers of all the arithmetical sentences having m has parameter that m can prove relatively to hypothetical universal numbers. Read the Plotinus paper if you want to see an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, and its testability in the computationalist case. You don't need to believe in anything to understand the relations, and to understand that we can have a non Aristotelian view of reality, which is still rationalist, yet more open to well, surprise(s) in the theological studies. Bruno 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: All randomness is quantum...
On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote: On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic process? Different definitions of random. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Bruno, To answer your last question please refer to the new topic I just started Another stab at how spacetime emergences computationally or something like that. I forget exactly how I titled it... Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:36:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! But decoherence also falsifies MW. Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation. If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the wave, you doubt QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation of QM. It's a description of a physical object in human math. You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for. Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be asked about a physical object. That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable of analysing it. Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what you assume. Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a quantum decision? The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background space common to all events, it's a description of how space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with another particle's wavefunction. That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like explaining gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this. In physics (which I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the mind-body problem). In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion. Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events. So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational space. That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the source of quantum randomness, so i ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Each particular language will have some exception on the incompressibility issue. That should be part of the role of the variable constant in the general universal definition. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well. It's not Church-Turing, but it might be the way the world works. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not here. However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something in the exact same present moment that I write this sentence. That is the present moment that we share. No, that's not clear at all. Since you and Liz are not in the same place and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, there exist a whole range of Liz's moments which may correspond to your moment depending on which moving frame is arbitrarily chosen to determine simultaneity. Do you somehow imagine that there is some gap in your time line that takes you out of existence as I write this sentence? If there isn't then you must agree we do share a common present moment... But it is not uniquely defined. Brent Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:27:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: It's self-evident that everyone has a present moment, which they will all agree is now. It's also self-evident that they have a current position, which everyone will tell you is here. Hence everyone is at the same time, and in the same place. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: God or not?
On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I use Platonism, where God == Truth. I know what truth means as an attribute of a sentence. But I don't know what Truth means? The set of all true sentences...including This sentence is not in the set of true sentences.? Brent When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that truth was a provisional reification of the most useful model. --- Anne O'Reilly So God is my dog just took a dump. God is not that much a bad name. It is a VERY bad name if someone sincerely wishes to avoid confusion and wants to use language honestly. Never mind what you write here at least be honest with yourself and ask do I really want to avoid confusion?. Do I really want to use language honestly? If so then it would be better to say it's true that my dog just took a dump. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote Are faster-than-light influences involved? No. That means you think things are local. 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism or both MUST be wrong. And yes I know that's crazy, but complain to the universe not to me. Your ideas are not crazy, and that is exactly why they're wrong. If I were making a universe I'd make it your way too, but unfortunately Yehowah got the job not me. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Hi Edgar, I like Kevin Knuth's theory of emergent space time. It is far more simple and does not need to get into quantum aspects other than a basic notion of an observer. An observer is a simple entity whose state is changed as the result of an observation/interaction: A nice video of one of his talks can be found on the Perimeter Institute website. On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. How would this work? What is doing this computing, and how and where is it doing it? Computation is generally considered to be a time-based operation, a series of rule-governed state transitions. It also appears to require some form of space (e.g. Turing's infinite tape and state table) in which the machine state and the input and output are to be stored. The only way I know of to not assume space and time as a fundamental background is Bruno's idea that computation can be made to operate indexically inside arithmetical realism. Are you proposing something like that? If so, please elaborate. One cannot just imagine a world in which everything is computational - to have an ontology based on computation, one needs a framework which starts from the nature of computation and explains how it can be instantiated without any supporting structures (like time or hardware). Once you've explained and justified this initial assumption, we can proceed to the next step in your argument. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: All randomness is quantum...
Well OK, but that's *one* way in which randomness isn't quantum. On 30 December 2013 07:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote: On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. I thought the digits of pi were random, but computable by a deterministic process? Different definitions of random. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Cramer's transactional interpretation is non-local. Not really. It's slower-than-light, but retro. If you can reach the finish line of a race before you even hear the starting gun I'd say you're pretty damn fast. From Wikipedia: The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is explicitly non-local [...] As such it incorporates the non-locality demonstrated by the Bell test experiments and eliminates the observer dependent reality that plagues the Copenhagen Interpretation 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Not quite, violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications). On 30 December 2013 09:05, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote Are faster-than-light influences involved? No. That means you think things are local. 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism or both MUST be wrong. And yes I know that's crazy, but complain to the universe not to me. Your ideas are not crazy, and that is exactly why they're wrong. If I were making a universe I'd make it your way too, but unfortunately Yehowah got the job not me. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. There doesn't have to be any notion of physical space for computations to take place within. The take place in a purely pre-dimensional logical space. They are not running on any physical computer. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:25:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. How would this work? What is doing this computing, and how and where is it doing it? Computation is generally considered to be a time-based operation, a series of rule-governed state transitions. It also appears to require some form of space (e.g. Turing's infinite tape and state table) in which the machine state and the input and output are to be stored. The only way I know of to not assume space and time as a fundamental background is Bruno's idea that computation can be made to operate indexically inside arithmetical realism. Are you proposing something like that? If so, please elaborate. One cannot just imagine a world in which everything is computational - to have an ontology based on computation, one needs a framework which starts from the nature of computation and explains how it can be instantiated without any supporting structures (like time or hardware). Once you've explained and justified this initial assumption, we can proceed to the next step in your argument. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
I think I've read enough to be fairly sure that Mr Owen doesn't understand the problem. Brent just stated it uneqivocally. There is no unique mapping from one observer's present moments to another's, or to put it another way, there are an infinite number of equally valid mappings. It took scientists a while to get their head around this (Eddington said sometime around 1910 that only 3 people understood it, or rather than he couldn't think who the third one was, iirc) But we've now had 108 years in which to grasp this fact, it checks out in countless experiments, it's built into the design of the GPS system - there is no unique present moment. (Another way to look at it is that the present moment is a hyperslice through space-time, and the slices that go through a given event can be oriented at various angles to the light cone of that event.) On 30 December 2013 08:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not here. However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something in the exact same present moment that I write this sentence. That is the present moment that we share. No, that's not clear at all. Since you and Liz are not in the same place and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, there exist a whole range of Liz's moments which may correspond to your moment depending on which moving frame is arbitrarily chosen to determine simultaneity. Do you somehow imagine that there is some gap in your time line that takes you out of existence as I write this sentence? If there isn't then you must agree we do share a common present moment... But it is not uniquely defined. Brent Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:27:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: It's self-evident that everyone has a present moment, which they will all agree is now. It's also self-evident that they have a current position, which everyone will tell you is here. Hence everyone is at the same time, and in the same place. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/29/2013 9:16 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more clearly and succinctly. Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist. Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality. Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space. The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event. Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the conservation laws. Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. Dimensional seems to have just been thrown in with no real meaning. What is needed is an operational definition of interval between two such point. Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations. But you need to show the definition of interval produces a 3+1 spacetime. Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical spacetime. He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar spacetime. But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it emerged. Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events Hold it!? A mini-spacetime network consists of interaction events that must be related in some way to form a network. So how can the network be abosultely independent of other networks? They might even share some of the same events. is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements. This requires that the intervals between events arise or be induced and that they form a 3+1 spacetime. What are the dynamics of this process? Brent E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: violations of Bell's inequality can also be explained by time symmetry (Huw Price and John Bell, private communications). I have no idea what that private communication is, but I do know that time is NOT symmetric. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! But decoherence also falsifies MW. Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation. Or matrix equation or path integral equations. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
John, No. See the explanation in my new topic Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality and you will (hopefully) see why those problems are avoided... Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:05:24 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote Are faster-than-light influences involved? No. That means you think things are local. 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism or both MUST be wrong. And yes I know that's crazy, but complain to the universe not to me. Your ideas are not crazy, and that is exactly why they're wrong. If I were making a universe I'd make it your way too, but unfortunately Yehowah got the job not me. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. Jason Each particular language will have some exception on the incompressibility issue. That should be part of the role of the variable constant in the general universal definition. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote Are faster-than-light influences involved? No. That means you think things are local. 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. That means you think things are realistic, and that means I know for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism or both MUST be wrong. Or measurements are multi-valued. MWI has both locality and realism. Of course it is still crazy. :-) Jason And yes I know that's crazy, but complain to the universe not to me. Your ideas are not crazy, and that is exactly why they're wrong. If I were making a universe I'd make it your way too, but unfortunately Yehowah got the job not me. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. So if someone keeps alternating between measuring the spin on the y axis, and then the spin on the x axis, are they not multiplying themselves continuously into diverging states (under MWI)? Even though these states only weakly interfere, are they not still superposed (that is, the particles involved in a simultaneous combination of possessing many different states for their properties)? An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving classical probabilities. Are there pure states in Everett's interpretation? Doesn't one have to consider the wave function of the universe and consider it all the way into the past? In any case, returning to the original point that began this tangent, do agree that QM interpretations which are anti-realist (or deny the reality of the superposition) are unable to describe where the intermediate computations that produce the answer to a quantum computation, take place? What would Fuchs say about quantum computation? 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Brent and Jason, I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple one-to-one and onto map! On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. Thanks. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be of no relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very small strings map directly to very large ones. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you consider the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to represent some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more compressible than others. In your previous example with base 6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the string 10 in order to encode 6999500235148669. For the majority of numbers, you will find the Kolmogorov complexity of the number to almost always be on the order of the number of digits in that number. The exceptions like 11 are few and far between. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Brent and Jason, I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple one-to-one and onto map! Stephen, For any loss-less (full-fidelity) compression algorithm, the mapping is one-to-one. There are other compression algorithms, like jpeg or mp3 which are lossy (they discard some information in the process), and hence they are many-to-one. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. So if someone keeps alternating between measuring the spin on the y axis, and then the spin on the x axis, are they not multiplying themselves continuously into diverging states (under MWI)? Even though these states only weakly interfere, are they not still superposed (that is, the particles involved in a simultaneous combination of possessing many different states for their properties)? Right, according to Everett, the world state becomes a superposition of states of the form |x0,x1,... where each xi is either +x, -x, +y, or -y. And per the Bucky Ball, Young's slit experiment, the spins don't have to observed by anyone. If the silver atom just goes thru the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and hits the laboratory wall, the superposition is still created. If it just goes out the window and into space...it's not so clear. An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving classical probabilities. Are there pure states in Everett's interpretation? Doesn't one have to consider the wave function of the universe and consider it all the way into the past? I suppose the universe could have started in a mixed state, but most cosmologists would invoke Ockham and assume it started in a pure state - which, assuming only unitary evolution, means it's still in a pure state. Of course since inflation there can be
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. Thanks. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be of no relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very small strings map directly to very large ones. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you consider the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to represent some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more compressible than others. In your previous example with base 6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the string 10 in order to encode 6999500235148669. But that seems to make the randomness of a number dependent on the base used to write it down? Did I have to write down And this is in base 10 to show that 6999500235148668 is random? There seems to be an equivocation here on computing a number and computing a representation of a number. For the majority of numbers, you will find the Kolmogorov complexity of the number to almost always be on the order of the number of digits in that number. The exceptions like 11 are few and far between. 1 looks a lot messier in base 9. Berent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Richard, It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to be a genius though. :-) And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum to try to clarify the presentation of my ideas Nothing does that better than sharp criticism Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: all, According to Mr. Qwen, he was a child genius. On every other list he has appeared the genius still. So I thought I should subject him to this list. Thanks for coming through. Richard On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Pierz, If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy is not being converted from one form to another but stored in each moment of past time. Block time does violate conservation of energy. I know there are ways people try to weasel out of this but they are not convincing. Block time is simply not possible, and as I've pointed out before SR and the associated STc Principle conclusively falsify it. Not only that no one who accepts the block time nonsense has been able to come up with any convincing physics based reason why we exist in a present moment, or even seem to exist in a present moment, since you don't believe there actually is one. Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Dear Edgar Owen
Might I respectfully suggest the following: 1) That when you have an obvious intuition or brilliant stroke of insight that goes against a century or more of insight from the most distinguished physicists and 2) That when you are unable to operationalize your intuition in such a way that other people could perform an experiment to see what you are saying is true and that it does in fact go against the received wisdom then... You might reconsider the merit of your originally amazing intuition and ask yourself if you might not in fact be in error and/or suffering from a bit of self-deception. Yes, it does seem quite obvious and self-evident that we all share a single present, I absolutely and utterly agree with you here. However, I also appreciate the various thought experiments put forward by Einstein originally and now by other (quite sharp) people on this list pointing out how this intuition simply cannot be true. These thought experiments have later become actual experiments whose results have agreed, not with our incredibly clear and obvious intuition, but with the very counter-intuitive predictions that Einstein provided. I'm not going to hash out more examples. I don't think it's necessary. I've included some links you might want to read at the end. What I think is happening though is you might be deceiving yourself a bit in thinking that you are so brilliant in arriving at insights that absolutely no one else has come to, and you are kind of starting to come across like this guy.http://www.timecube.com/ If you really want to understand behavior of the physical world we live in (or apparently physical, but actually computational, a la Bruno), maybe try these links out: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/srelwhat.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html Peace out, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. So if someone keeps alternating between measuring the spin on the y axis, and then the spin on the x axis, are they not multiplying themselves continuously into diverging states (under MWI)? Even though these states only weakly interfere, are they not still superposed (that is, the particles involved in a simultaneous combination of possessing many different states for their properties)? Right, according to Everett, the world state becomes a superposition of states of the form |x0,x1,... where each xi is either +x, -x, +y, or -y. And per the Bucky Ball, Young's slit experiment, the spins don't have to observed by anyone. If the silver atom just goes thru the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and hits the laboratory wall, the superposition is still created. If it just goes out the window and into space...it's not so clear. An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving classical probabilities. Are there pure states in Everett's interpretation? Doesn't one have to consider the wave function of the universe and consider it all the way into the past? I suppose the universe could have started in a mixed state, but most cosmologists would invoke Ockham and assume it started in a pure state - which, assuming only unitary evolution, means it's still in a pure state. Of course since inflation there can be entanglements across event horizons, so FAPP that creates mixed states. In any case, returning to the original point that began this tangent, do agree that QM interpretations which are anti-realist (or deny the reality of the superposition) are unable to describe where the intermediate computations that produce the answer to a quantum computation, take place? They take place in a quantum computer. And the quantum computer is a coherent, long-lived
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up. I'm afraid there is no help for you, my friend. On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:11:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Richard, It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to be a genius though. :-) And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum to try to clarify the presentation of my ideas Nothing does that better than sharp criticism Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: all, According to Mr. Qwen, he was a child genius. On every other list he has appeared the genius still. So I thought I should subject him to this list. Thanks for coming through. Richard On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
ALL HAIL TIME CUBE!! http://www.timecube.com/ On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:35:10 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: In order for criticism to be effective, the one being criticized must be willing to see his errors, something I think you have long ago given up. I'm afraid there is no help for you, my friend. On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:11:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Richard, It is true I entered university aged 15 and earned my BS in math and physics with honors and a minor in philosophy aged 18. I never claimed to be a genius though. :-) And Richard, thanks again for the invite to the group! It's a good forum to try to clarify the presentation of my ideas Nothing does that better than sharp criticism Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: all, According to Mr. Qwen, he was a child genius. On every other list he has appeared the genius still. So I thought I should subject him to this list. Thanks for coming through. Richard On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. Thanks. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be of no relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very small strings map directly to very large ones. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you consider the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to represent some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more compressible than others. In your previous example with base 6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the string 10 in order to encode 6999500235148669. But that seems to make the randomness of a number dependent on the base used to write it down? Did I have to write down And this is in base 10 to show that 6999500235148668 is random? There seems to be an equivocation here on computing a number and computing a representation of a number. A number containing regular patterns in some base, will also contain regular patterns in some other base (even if they are not obvious to us), compression algorithms are good at recognizing them. The text of this sentence may not seem very redundant, but english text can generally be compressed somewhere between 20% - 30% of its original size. If you convert a number like 555 to base 2, its patterns should be more evident in the pattern of bits. For the majority of numbers, you will find the Kolmogorov complexity of the number to almost always be on the order of the number of digits in that number. The exceptions like 11 are few and far between. 1 looks a lot messier in base 9. base 10: 111 base 9: 7355531854711617707 base 2: 011010110111010110101011001010000100011100 In base 9, there is a high proportion of 7's compared to other digits. In base 2, the sequence '110' seems more common than
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. So if someone keeps alternating between measuring the spin on the y axis, and then the spin on the x axis, are they not multiplying themselves continuously into diverging states (under MWI)? Even though these states only weakly interfere, are they not still superposed (that is, the particles involved in a simultaneous combination of possessing many different states for their properties)? Right, according to Everett, the world state becomes a superposition of states of the form |x0,x1,... where each xi is either +x, -x, +y, or -y. And per the Bucky Ball, Young's slit experiment, the spins don't have to observed by anyone. If the silver atom just goes thru the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and hits the laboratory wall, the superposition is still created. If it just goes out the window and into space...it's not so clear. An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. Thanks. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be of no relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very small strings map directly to very large ones. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you consider the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to represent some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more compressible than others. In your previous example with base 6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the string 10 in order to encode 6999500235148669. But that seems to make the randomness of a number dependent on the base used to write it down? Did I have to write down And this is in base 10 to show that 6999500235148668 is random? There seems to be an equivocation here on computing a number and computing a representation of a number. A number containing regular patterns in some base, will also contain regular patterns in some other base (even if they are not obvious to us), compression algorithms are good at recognizing them. The text of this sentence may not seem very redundant, but english text can generally be compressed somewhere between 20% - 30% of
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer, Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories! :-) Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dear Edgar Owen
On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth (since so long) and we are the dumbest people on earth... but by a miracle (that only he knows) he feel compelled to overwhelm us with his truth and his patronizing vocabulary... why ? To Prove Einstein Wrong! perhaps? That used to be a huge cottage industry back in, I think, the 50s and 60s - everyone with half a theory was sure they could explain where Albert had slipped up. (One of them was even immortalised in the works of James Blish, I think it was the Haertel overdrive, which embarrassingly turned out to not swallow Einstein whole as Blish said in one of his novels after all, although it was a handy SF device even so.) I must admit I thought we'd moved on, now, to a new fad -- the Prove Global Warming Wrong! cottage industry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 30 December 2013 12:03, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: PS: You can blame me for Roger as well. You're a wicked, wicked man! But fear not, you bring 'em on and the assembled brainpower around here will shoot them down. (Must.resist.schadenfreude.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 30 December 2013 11:55, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. Sigh. That was my first assumption, but I hesitated to say it aloud because it's rather sad to be caught in the prior investment fallacy - God knows I staying in a bad marriage for a long time because of it, before finally waking up to reality and cutting my losses. PS I might just take this opportunity to apologise to Andrew Soltau for having only managed to read about 1 chapter of *his* book. Had we but world enough and time, I know, my coyness would be no crime. But all the time I seem to hear time's winged chariot drawing near - which is an inducement to skip all but the very best-presented of theories, and even those get short thrift (I'm still only half way through David Deutsch's Beginning Of Infinity and with one or two caveats I worship his ideas). Although I also admit I have done several *Times* crosswords in the last week. Some difficult-to-grasp ideas are just too tempting, like this one... Swapped rounds from his severance! (10) PS if anyone can tell me the answer to that clue (which I admit is one of mine) you will get a CIGAR! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer, Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories! Pot, kettle... ! The last refuge of the forum poster who can't convince everyone that he's* right is to start attacking the motives of his opponents and to accuse them of lacking a sense of humour. Carry on in this direction much further and you will be in contravention of Godwin's Law, and no one will take you seriously ever again. *PS sorry guys buy it does seem to usually be a he, at least in my experience. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines, Who wrote this? *any* ideally correct machines is unable to recognize the fact that they are machines. Just someone on a Facebook thread, I forget who. Anyone who says yes to the doctor then cannot be an ideally correct machine. Craig Bruno I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect on their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact. I agree that there is an intrinsic limit to Strong AI, but I think that the limit is at the starting gate. Since consciousness is the embodiment of uniqueness and unrepeatability, there is no almost conscious. It doesn't matter how much the artist in the painting looks like he is really painting himself in the mirror, or how realistic Escher makes the staircase look, those realities are forever sculpted in theory, not in the multisense realism. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
All, All, Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a common present moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can prove that can we establish that the present moment is universal, that the same present moment is shared across the universe. Obviously we cannot establish this by direct observation due to the finite speed of light, but it is easy to prove with the following argument. Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual present moment time, and the same clock time. Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while the other remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist in their own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constant proper time rate. Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remained behind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact same actual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actual present moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous. At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two different things. Both observers confirm this by direct observation. Now the question is can we confirm that both observers also shared the exact same actual present times during their separation in space? Yes we can and the argument is simple. Both observer's actual present times and their clock times were continuous during the 1 year they were separated. There was always both some actual present moment and some actual clock time. During the separation period each observer was always continuously extant in time as both actual present time and clock time progressed. Now since both observers started at the same present moment of time and ended at the same actual present moment of time and since each observer always had some present moment during the separation it is obvious that at every point in each observer's actual present time there must have been a corresponding point in the other observer's actual present time. In every point in each observer's actual present moment the other observer must have been doing something at the same actual present moment time. This is because there was never a gap in either observer's present moment, a moment when they didn't exist in their present moment, thus there must be a one to one mapping of actual present moments even when the observers were separated. Think of two points on a sheet of graph paper, one vertically above the other. Join the points by one straight vertical line and one curved line which will be of greater length. The vertical grids will correspond to the passage of present moment P-time while the different lengths along the lines will correspond to their clock times. Note that while clock time passes at different rates on the two lines, P-time, the vertical distance between the grids, passes at the same rate across both lines. And there is ALWAYS a corresponding point on both lines that represents the same present moment time where the lines are intersected by the same grid line. Thus there is always a common present moment no matter how observers may be separated in space. This is also confirmed by the fact that the observers left from the same actual present moment and returned to the same actual present moment. The observer who traveled has a clock that reads less than a year passed while the observer who stayed behind has a clock that tells him a year has passed BUT their actual present moments are simultaneous (because they can observably confirm that by shaking hands both before and after the trip) and thus must also always have been simultaneous during the period of separation. This conclusively proves that observers inhabit the exact same actual present moment both when they are at the same place and when they are separated in space. Thus we must conclude there is a common universal present moment that all observers inhabit, and thus that that common universal present moment is the only moment anything exists in, that it is the only locus of reality. This conclusively proves that there are two kinds of time, clock time which is measured by clocks, and the actual universal present time moment (P-time) that is common to all observers, and that clock time and P-time are only synchronous in non-relativistic situations. Clock times vary with relativistic circumstance but P-time doesn't. It remains simultaneous for all observers in all circumstances. Everything continually inhabits the same actual P-time present moment. I don't think the argument can be expressed much clearer and more
Re: Dear Edgar Owen
On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth (since so long) and we are the dumbest people on earth... but by a miracle (that only he knows) he feel compelled to overwhelm us with his truth and his patronizing vocabulary... why ? To Prove Einstein Wrong! perhaps? That used to be a huge cottage industry back in, I think, the 50s and 60s - everyone with half a theory was sure they could explain where Albert had slipped up. (One of them was even immortalised in the works of James Blish, I think it was the Haertel overdrive, which embarrassingly turned out to not swallow Einstein whole as Blish said in one of his novels after all, although it was a handy SF device even so.) I must admit I thought we'd moved on, now, to a new fad -- the Prove Global Warming Wrong! cottage industry. Except there's a lot more money to be made in that endeavor. Comparable to Prove cigarettes don't cause cancer. There were no corporations with a stake in proving relativity wrong. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Far from it, really;-) I assure you, I wish you no burning at any stakes, whether literal or figurative. You are perfectly entitled to be as incorrect as you wish, especially in an area as solidly established as relativistic physics. It's just that (a ma parte, at least), I feel a bit bad for you, because you seem really deluded and you are kind of embarrassing yourself with your (wrong) insistence that no one gets you. I think we all get what you are saying (i.e. understand the ideas that words you use are trying to convey). All of the sentence strings you use are well-formed. It's just that the picture they create in logical space doesn't correspond with the physical reality we happen to inhabit. That's all. It's not a matter of being persecuted because of dogma. It's just that, if you bothered to review the relevant literature, you'd see that you were wrong. But as I said before, and as you are showing again, I don't think there is any hope for you because you refuse to see things as they are. One thing to be said in your favor: at least what you say is refutable, unlike Roger Clough, whose ideas are so vacuous and anodyne that they can't even be dignified by calling them wrong. Cheers! On Sunday, December 29, 2013 7:02:05 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer, Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories! :-) Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer, Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories! Pot, kettle... ! I've found Edgar's responses to be courteous and impersonal - even if wrongheaded on the question of time. But something like his idea of deriving space from quantum events may be fruitful. It's been considered before, but never really worked out. I don't think he can do it because done properly it would also derive time from event relations, but I'd like to know how he proposes to get space (aka dimensional relations) from events. Brent The last refuge of the forum poster who can't convince everyone that he's* right is to start attacking the motives of his opponents and to accuse them of lacking a sense of humour. Carry on in this direction much further and you will be in contravention of Godwin's Law, and no one will take you seriously ever again. *PS sorry guys buy it does seem to usually be a he, at least in my experience. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Once more unto the breach... On 30 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual present moment time, and the same clock time. Step 1 is an event in space time. We can agree that the observers to a good approximation share the same present moment at that event. Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while the other remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist in their own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constant proper time rate. Step 2 involves the observers taking different paths through space time. Their present moments exist for them but can't be shown by any experiment to be the same (in fact the concept is meaningless during this step). Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remained behind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact same actual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actual present moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous. Step 3 is an event in space time. It occurs at a 4 dimensional point. We can agree that the observers to a good approximation share the same present moment at that event. At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two different things. Both observers confirm this by direct observation. No it isn't, and no they don't. One has aged less than the other, and observes that he has arrived at this event (say) one year after their last meeting, yet oddly this corresponds to a point two years after their last meeting for the other guy. They observe that their present moments, have become disconnected. Space-guy's present moment is now a year behind Earth-guy's, and if they had had the mouths of wormholes with them on their travels they might even be able to exploit this different to travel through time (though that's rather speculative). I wait the hand waving refutation - which will only involve words, rather than maths or diagrams - with tired resignation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dear Edgar Owen
On 30 December 2013 14:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Owen used the 101 crackpot dictionary... he knows the truth (since so long) and we are the dumbest people on earth... but by a miracle (that only he knows) he feel compelled to overwhelm us with his truth and his patronizing vocabulary... why ? To Prove Einstein Wrong! perhaps? That used to be a huge cottage industry back in, I think, the 50s and 60s - everyone with half a theory was sure they could explain where Albert had slipped up. (One of them was even immortalised in the works of James Blish, I think it was the Haertel overdrive, which embarrassingly turned out to not swallow Einstein whole as Blish said in one of his novels after all, although it was a handy SF device even so.) I must admit I thought we'd moved on, now, to a new fad -- the Prove Global Warming Wrong! cottage industry. Except there's a lot more money to be made in that endeavor. Comparable to Prove cigarettes don't cause cancer. There were no corporations with a stake in proving relativity wrong. Absolutely, yet a lot of people with no personal (monetary) stake in the outcome are joining in, even so, and presumably for the same reason - to fix their personal cognitive dissonance between the world as it is and as they'd like it to be. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Hi Brent, No conserved doesn't mean all the energy of every moment remains in that moment which is somehow still real. What it means is that when it is recomputed in every moment none of it is lost. The only energy that exists exists in the present moment, and it is always (in the same frame) conserved in that moment. If past moments in block time are real then the energy, and everything else that existed in those moments, must still be real and actual, and that does violate conservation. Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:34:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/29/2013 3:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Pierz, If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy is not being converted from one form to another but stored in each moment of past time. Block time does violate conservation of energy. I know there are ways people try to weasel out of this but they are not convincing. You don't seem to grasp what conserved means. It means the conserved quantity is the same at different times - not that it is zero in the past and future and non-zero now. Block time is simply not possible, and as I've pointed out before SR and the associated STc Principle conclusively falsify it. Not only that no one who accepts the block time nonsense has been able to come up with any convincing physics based reason why we exist in a present moment, or even seem to exist in a present moment Choose a moment, a spacelike surface, in the block universe. Inspect the brain of person at this surface. There will be complex structures that remember earlier, but not later, moments in the block universe. Consider a slightly later moment along the world line of that brain. There will be new structures corresponding to information from the past light cone. That's why the brain thinks there's a present moment - it got some new (to it) information that makes that moment different from all the previous ones. Brent , since you don't believe there actually is one. Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:55:09 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Agreed, Liz. His bizarre misunderstandings about block time (it violates conservation of energy) and sundry other statements exhibiting poor comprehension of modern physics reveal him to be exactly what you suspected early on: a crackpot. The question he put to you in which he asked if you ceased to exist at one point on his timeline reveals his basic error of logic. Everything must exist simultaneously with me, therefore there is a universal common present moment. Obviously that does not necessarily follow but Mr Owen has invested so much in his idea (he's written a book - self-published one might assume) that he is incapable of seriously questioning it any more. I guess there are two routes to genius: have a brilliant, revolutionary idea and convince the world, or have a wrong revolutionary idea and armour yourself so heavily against reason that every rebuttal merely reinforces your own view that you are a misunderstood visionary. Ad hominem. Mea culpa. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Brent, I give a detailed answer to your question in my new topic on Another shot of how spacetime emerges from computational reality. Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:36:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:37 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Pierz, Liz and Frequent Flyer, Jeez, you guys, this seems to be becoming a matter of sacred religious dogma to you and someone who doesn't agree deserves to burned at the stake! Lighten up guys and take a deep breath, they're just theories! Pot, kettle... ! I've found Edgar's responses to be courteous and impersonal - even if wrongheaded on the question of time. But something like his idea of deriving space from quantum events may be fruitful. It's been considered before, but never really worked out. I don't think he can do it because done properly it would also derive time from event relations, but I'd like to know how he proposes to get space (aka dimensional relations) from events. Brent The last refuge of the forum poster who can't convince everyone that he's* right is to start attacking the motives of his opponents and to accuse them of lacking a sense of humour. Carry on in this direction much further and you will be in contravention of Godwin's Law, and no one will take you seriously ever again. *PS sorry guys buy it does seem to usually be a he, at least in my experience. -- 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 javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dear Edgar Owen
I don't intend to play DA or Defense just muse about the 'firmness' of a temporary scientific belief (even supportable by tests using instruments - or theories - based on the acceptability of those beliefs). There were 'centuries' with scientific belief of the Geocentric pattern - when Copernicus thought differently, introducing 'centuries of heliocentrism-' until Hubble came up with brand new ideas leading to a 'firm' scientific belief of a Big Bang based cosmology. And it MAY go on and on. No one tried to try the 'new' to be subject to the experimental proof of the old. I am not on Edgar's side, I am agnostic. Physical law and other conventional science make only 'practical' sense to me - they are facilitating the development of an (almost) fitting new technology - I dislike 'thought experiments' and human logic based proof applied to new systems/ideas about the 'totality'. The R. Rosen 'model' of the world - the limited ensemble of the presently knowables - is part of the wider totality of (as I like to call it) Infinite Complexity of Everything. We have no way to learn more than included within the model and the format is adjusted to our limited mental capabilities: accordingly the 'infinite' may look(?) quite different. Yet it has it's effect on the In-Model ensemble. We are part of the World, not above it, so our logic and thinking may be partial as well. We 'use' practical conclusions - yet should not draw final and universal ones on a totality we don't know. Call it Scientific humility. I like 'fresh' ideas penetrate the List (with more flesh, maybe, not only hints to in my book references). Respectfully (as a list-member since the last millennium) John M On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote: Might I respectfully suggest the following: 1) That when you have an obvious intuition or brilliant stroke of insight that goes against a century or more of insight from the most distinguished physicists and 2) That when you are unable to operationalize your intuition in such a way that other people could perform an experiment to see what you are saying is true and that it does in fact go against the received wisdom then... You might reconsider the merit of your originally amazing intuition and ask yourself if you might not in fact be in error and/or suffering from a bit of self-deception. Yes, it does seem quite obvious and self-evident that we all share a single present, I absolutely and utterly agree with you here. However, I also appreciate the various thought experiments put forward by Einstein originally and now by other (quite sharp) people on this list pointing out how this intuition simply cannot be true. These thought experiments have later become actual experiments whose results have agreed, not with our incredibly clear and obvious intuition, but with the very counter-intuitive predictions that Einstein provided. I'm not going to hash out more examples. I don't think it's necessary. I've included some links you might want to read at the end. What I think is happening though is you might be deceiving yourself a bit in thinking that you are so brilliant in arriving at insights that absolutely no one else has come to, and you are kind of starting to come across like this guy.http://www.timecube.com/ If you really want to understand behavior of the physical world we live in (or apparently physical, but actually computational, a la Bruno), maybe try these links out: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/srelwhat.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/synchronizing.html http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html Peace out, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 12/29/2013 5:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, All, Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a common present moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can prove that can we establish that the present moment is universal, that the same present moment is shared across the universe. Obviously we cannot establish this by direct observation due to the finite speed of light, but it is easy to prove with the following argument. Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual present moment time, and the same clock time. And that the clock's run at the same rate. Right? Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while the other remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist in their own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constant proper time rate. Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remained behind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact same actual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actual present moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous. This is confusing being at the same event with measuring the same duration. Of course they are at the same event. But they are different durations away from their previous shared event. At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two different things. Both observers confirm this by direct observation. Now the question is can we confirm that both observers also shared the exact same actual present times during their separation in space? Yes we can and the argument is simple. Both observer's actual present times and their clock times were continuous during the 1 year they were separated. There was always both some actual present moment and some actual clock time. During the separation period each observer was always continuously extant in time as both actual present time and clock time progressed. Now since both observers started at the same present moment of time and ended at the same actual present moment of time and since each observer always had some present moment during the separation it is obvious that at every point in each observer's actual present time there must have been a corresponding point in the other observer's actual present time. In every point in each observer's actual present moment the other observer must have been doing something at the same actual present moment time. This is because there was never a gap in either observer's present moment, a moment when they didn't exist in their present moment, thus there must be a one to one mapping of actual present moments even when the observers were separated. But there is no *unique* one-to-one mapping. In Newtonian physics there was. But in special relativity the one-to-one mapping depends on the choice of inertial frame and the speed of light is the same in every frame so there is no preferred inertial frame. Think of two points on a sheet of graph paper, one vertically above the other. Join the points by one straight vertical line and one curved line which will be of greater length. The vertical grids will correspond to the passage of present moment P-time while the different lengths along the lines will correspond to their clock times. Note that while clock time passes at different rates on the two lines, P-time, the vertical distance between the grids, passes at the same rate across both lines. And there is ALWAYS a corresponding point on both lines that represents the same present moment time where the lines are intersected by the same grid line. There is no unique point that is at the same time. It is arbitrary up to a choice of reference frame. I have suggested that the CMB can provide a preferred reference frame so long as the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. But this introduces other problems. (1) We're not on a preferred frame (2) clocks run at different rates because of the expansion of the universe. Thus there is always a common present moment no matter how observers may be separated in space. This is also confirmed by the fact that the observers left from the same actual present moment and returned to the same actual present moment. The observer who traveled has a clock that reads less than a year passed while the observer who stayed behind has a clock that tells him a year has passed BUT their actual present moments are simultaneous (because they can observably confirm that by shaking hands both before and after the trip) and thus must also always have been simultaneous during the period of
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
Dear Brent, I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities? On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). Superposition is just a question of basis. An eigenstate in one basis is a superposition in another. Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to be both in a superposition and not? Is this like the superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room? ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - that's just Hilbert space math. So then when is the system not in a superposition? When it's an incoherent mixture of pure states. What makes it incoherent though? If the density matrix is not a projection operator, i.e. rho^2 =/= rho, it's incoherent. But really I just meant that in theory there is a basis in which any given pure state is just (1,0,0,...). In theory there is a 'deadalive' basis in which Schrodinger's cat can be represented just like a spin-up state is a superposition is a spin-left basis. So if someone keeps alternating between measuring the spin on the y axis, and then the spin on the x axis, are they not multiplying themselves continuously into diverging states (under MWI)? Even though these states only weakly interfere, are they not still superposed (that is, the particles involved in a simultaneous combination of possessing many different states for their properties)? Right, according to Everett, the world state becomes a superposition of states of the form |x0,x1,... where each xi is either +x, -x, +y, or -y. And per the Bucky Ball, Young's slit experiment, the spins don't have to observed by anyone. If the silver atom just goes thru the Stern-Gerlach apparatus and hits the laboratory wall, the superposition is still created. If it just goes out the window and into space...it's not so clear. An electron in a superposition, when measured, is still in a superposition according to MWI. It is just that the person doing the measurement is now also caught up in that superposition. The only thing that can destroy this superposition is to move everything back into the same state it was originally for all the possible diverged states, which should practically never happen for a superposition that has leaked into the environment. In Everett's interpretation a pure state can never evolve into a mixture because the evolution is via a Hermitian operator, the Hamiltonian. Decoherence makes the submatrix corresponding to the system+instrument to approximate a mixture. That's why it can be interpreted as giving classical probabilities. Are there pure states in Everett's interpretation? Doesn't one have to consider the wave function of the universe and consider it all the way into the past? I suppose the universe could have started in a mixed state, but most cosmologists would invoke Ockham and assume it started in a pure state - which, assuming only unitary evolution, means it's still in a pure state. Of course since inflation there can be entanglements across event horizons, so FAPP that creates mixed states. In any case, returning to the original point that began this tangent, do agree that QM interpretations which are anti-realist (or deny the reality of the superposition) are unable to describe where the intermediate computations that produce the answer to a quantum
Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, All, Once we accept the obvious observable fact that we share a common present moment when we are together we need to take the next step and establish that we also share a common present moment when we are separated in space. Only if we can prove that can we establish that the present moment is universal, that the same present moment is shared across the universe. Obviously we cannot establish this by direct observation due to the finite speed of light, but it is easy to prove with the following argument. Step 1: Two observers stand together with the same clock times on their watches and shake hands. By direct observation they confirm they share both the same actual present moment time, and the same clock time. Step 2: One observer makes a 1 year space flight at relativistic acceleration while the other remains where he was. During this period both observers continuously exist in their own actual present moment, and their clocks appear to progress at a constant proper time rate. Step 3. The traveling observer returns and shakes hands with the observer who remained behind. Again, by direct observation they both confirm they both share the exact same actual present moment time but their clock times are no longer the same. Their actual present moment times are the same, but their clock times are not simultaneous. They can interact, despite being in different times, because the time dimension is length-contracted to be zero-length (as they are travelling through the proper time dimension at the speed of light). Any photon's now is forever, so photons emitted by the electrons of someone in a different time, still interact with the electrons of the person whose hand they are shaking even though they're in a later time. Jason At this point it is obvious that actual present time and clock time are two different things. Both observers confirm this by direct observation. Now the question is can we confirm that both observers also shared the exact same actual present times during their separation in space? Yes we can and the argument is simple. Both observer's actual present times and their clock times were continuous during the 1 year they were separated. There was always both some actual present moment and some actual clock time. During the separation period each observer was always continuously extant in time as both actual present time and clock time progressed. Now since both observers started at the same present moment of time and ended at the same actual present moment of time and since each observer always had some present moment during the separation it is obvious that at every point in each observer's actual present time there must have been a corresponding point in the other observer's actual present time. In every point in each observer's actual present moment the other observer must have been doing something at the same actual present moment time. This is because there was never a gap in either observer's present moment, a moment when they didn't exist in their present moment, thus there must be a one to one mapping of actual present moments even when the observers were separated. Think of two points on a sheet of graph paper, one vertically above the other. Join the points by one straight vertical line and one curved line which will be of greater length. The vertical grids will correspond to the passage of present moment P-time while the different lengths along the lines will correspond to their clock times. Note that while clock time passes at different rates on the two lines, P-time, the vertical distance between the grids, passes at the same rate across both lines. And there is ALWAYS a corresponding point on both lines that represents the same present moment time where the lines are intersected by the same grid line. Thus there is always a common present moment no matter how observers may be separated in space. This is also confirmed by the fact that the observers left from the same actual present moment and returned to the same actual present moment. The observer who traveled has a clock that reads less than a year passed while the observer who stayed behind has a clock that tells him a year has passed BUT their actual present moments are simultaneous (because they can observably confirm that by shaking hands both before and after the trip) and thus must also always have been simultaneous during the period of separation. This conclusively proves that observers inhabit the exact same actual present moment both when they are at the same place and when they are separated in space. Thus we must conclude there is a common universal present moment that all observers inhabit, and thus that that common universal present moment is the only moment anything exists in, that it is the only locus of reality. This conclusively proves that there are
Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Brent, I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities? In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the graph of y = 2x + 7 Jason On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time. So an external time dimension is required. So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less computations...I'll try. This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing everything...including space and time. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings, How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. You can define a finite string as incompressible when the shorter combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself. This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here combinators). Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal by adding some constant, which will depend of the universal language. It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any base, are random in that sense. Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some base, but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base with the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10 will be a compression of that particular number base, for that language, and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition exist working for all (small) numbers. Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the theory only holds in the limit. Brent Brent, It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2 digit numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a shorter string, another shorter string must necessarily be displaced. You can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there aren't enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size of all possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can never be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages. The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they are tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings, while making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger. A good explanation. Thanks. But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size doesn't imply that any particular number is incompressible. That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be of no relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very small strings map directly to very large ones. So isn't it the case that every finite number string is compressible in some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is random, but 11 is not, except relative to some given compression algorithm. Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you consider the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to represent some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more compressible than others. In your previous example with base 6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the string 10 in order to encode 6999500235148669. But that seems to make the randomness of a number dependent on the base used to write it down? Did I have to write down And this is in base 10 to show that 6999500235148668 is random? There seems to be an equivocation here on computing a number and computing a representation of a number. A number containing regular patterns in some base, will also contain regular patterns in some other base (even if they are not obvious to us), compression algorithms are good at recognizing them. The text of this sentence may not seem very redundant, but english text can generally be compressed somewhere between 20% - 30% of its original size. If you convert a number like 555 to base 2, its patterns should be more evident in the pattern of bits. For the majority of numbers, you will find the Kolmogorov complexity of the number to almost always be on the order of the number of digits in that number. The exceptions like 11 are few and far between. 1 looks a lot messier in base 9. base 10: 111 base 9: 7355531854711617707 base 2:
