date:20131229



On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb 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.


Yes. Presentism does not make sense with special relativity. "present"  
is an indexical. No need and in fact no means, to reify the "present".








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.


A long time ago, in my childhood, I saw a movie with a friend. My  
friend found the movie boring, and he felt like if it never ends: time  
was going slowly, for him.  But I loved that movie, and time was going  
very quickly for me. We discussed that after, and I was troubled. Was  
we still at the same moment?

Well, with computationalism, that question just does not make any sense.

Bruno






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- 
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 
"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 LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".

  If we are going to insist that time is an illusion, I can accept that,
but please explain the persistent illusion when it can be proven that there
is no a priori ordering of events allowed by QM. This is the fundamental
problem of uniting QM and SR/GR.

 They treat time fundamentally differently. Sure, we can do Deutsch's trick
of a pile of snapshots, but "states" do not come with little timestamps on
them for easy ordering nor is there a unique ordering of them even
possible. David Albert explains this very well in several of his talks. (He
does not have a paper on it that I can find though... that bothers me...)
Nevertheless, the point is that it is possible to explain time as a measure
of change iff we take change as fundamental and drop the Parmenidean dogma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

  A couple professors that I know are working on a paper that might slay
that monster finally... But how many will read it

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:43 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 30 December 2013 19:36, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
 Dear Jason,

   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved
 in the discussion here.

>>>
>>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>>>
>>
>> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
>> process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
>> emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses
>> the obvious.
>>
>
> It can be emergent exactly in the way Jason explained. It emerges because
> instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be
> smooth change between them. The snapshots used in FOR illustrate this.
>
>  --
> 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 12/29/2013 9:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

That is the only way to make progress.  Propose theories, and falsify them. 
 Ockham
says between theories that make equal predictions, simpler ones are better, 
and it
for theories of equal simplicity, ones that can explain more are also 
better.
 Anti-realist interpretations of QM have no adequate explanation for quantum
computers.


There's nothing "anti-realist" about relational or Bayesian subjective
interpretations, they just don't reify the wave function as you would like them to. 
Bohm used to make the same complaint that other theories weren't "realistic".  Fuchs

et al have as good an explanation of quantum computers as any dynamic 
quantum
system, there's nothing special about computers - it's just not one that 
appeals to you.


Computers in particular, while not special, are good examples because they illustrate 
that nothing known in our universe (aside from the superposition) has the necessarily 
complexity to produce answers to certain complex problems.


But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum.  But notice 
the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to 
specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's 
theorem).  So it doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.






They say "don't ask" on fundamental questions, which is never a good 
attitude to
have in science.


That's your straw man attribution.  You've apparently stopped asking and 
decided you
have the answer.


I would rather choose a speculative interpretation that turns out to be wrong then say 
QM needs no interpretation, nor should we look for one, as the paper you recently cited 
suggested.



Brent
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, 
they mainly
make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct which, with the 
addition
of certain verbal  interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The 
justification
of  such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is  
expected to work.
--—John von Neumann


If Fuchs et al operated according to this quote, they would see that a model is not the 
same thing as the description/predictions of observed phenomena that it makes.


But it could be.  You only know the observations - you don't know the reality 
in itself.



If we identify reality only with observed phenomena, what is to prevent us from falling 
into solipsism or idealism?


Solipism doesn't seem to work well.  When I kick people they kick back.  :-)

Brent
"I'm a Solipist, and I must say I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
  -- letter to Bertrand Russell

--
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 20:30, meekerdb wrote:


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.



If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If  
reality is physical reality, then this is the digital physics thesis,  
which is self-contradictory (due to the UDA).
Also, computing and obtaining a random result is contradictory by  
itself, as computing is determinated. It can make sense with a quantum  
computer, or with self-duplication, (or both like in Everett), so you  
might clarify here. Are you (Edgar, Brent) assuming a quantum  
computer? With comp this is a sort of treachery, as far as we are  
concerned with the fundamental reality.


Bruno


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.


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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 30 December 2013 19:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jason,
>>>
>>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
>>> the discussion here.
>>>
>>
>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>>
>
> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
> process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
> emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses
> the obvious.
>

It can be emergent exactly in the way Jason explained. It emerges because
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be
smooth change between them. The snapshots used in FOR illustrate this.

-- 
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 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb 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.


The definition will work for all numbers reasonably bigger than the  
code of the universal machine used. That is what determine the  
constant. Not all numbers are small relatively to the size of the  
universal number/machine used to compress information.


Bruno






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/



--
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 
"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 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear Jason,
>
>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
> the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things
> we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the
> point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
> appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking)
> as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon
> alighting on the answer.
>

This is a problem that a lot of people have with the whole idea of a block
universe and related concepts, but the fact is that space+time can be
considered as a 4 dimensional block. This is most easily understood if you
consider the past. As generally understood, the past is a perfect model of
a block universe. I know there are some caveats about this - delayed choice
experiments, time symmetric physics and so on - but if we restrict
ourselves to what might be called a "layman's" conception of the past, it
is a perfect example of a block universe.

To take a concrete example, the Battle of Hastings is embedded in the "map
of the past" at the spatial location Hastings, and the temporal location
1066 A.D. To the people fighting the battle, it appears that time is
"flowing" - they don't know what the outcome will be, to them it's still
undecided. But we can see from our "superior" future perspective that the
whole thing is simply embedded in a 4D block of space-time, and the outcome
is already there, embedded in space-time in a futureward direction from the
battle. The whole thing is a frozen timescape, within which it appears to
the participants that time is flowing.

There is no reason to think that our present is any different. We see time
as flowing just as the people in 1066 did, and for the same reason: if
something is taking dfferent values along the time axis, e.g. a bird is
changing position by flying past my window, that something appears to
change.

Watching a film in the cinema is another example of this, which is
especially clear if the film is on celluloid, or the modern equivalent
(it's a bit less clear perhaps if it's digital).

-- 
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 14:59, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  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.
>
> Bruno has explanied how his computations take place timelessly, within
arithmetic. So far Edgar's ontology requires an external, pre-existing time
dimension and a pre-existing "pre-logical space" (whatever that is).

I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD "runs" inside
arithmetic, but at least he has come up with a coherent theory, as far as I
can tell. But so far, at least, I am having trouble pinning down exactly
what Edgar is trying to say. (Admittedly I may be biased by his obvious
misunderstanding of SR, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with
his other ideas.)

-- 
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 Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jason,
>>>
>>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
>>> the discussion here.
>>>
>>
>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>>
>
> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
> process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
> emergent.
>

The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.

> Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
> obvious.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to
>>> understand.
>>>
>>
>> Right, that is good.
>>
>>
>>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that how explanations work?
>>
>>
>>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>>
>>
>> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There
>> is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability
>> to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a
>> series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman
>> expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea,
>> since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring
>> tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some
>> evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
>> processing done by our brain.
>>
>
>
> Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.
>

You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge
though.

> Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?
>
>
>From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea
from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the
idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments
that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary
to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
>>> appearance of change.
>>>
>>
>> It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look
>> for explanations of it.
>>
>
> Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned
> to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the
> persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a
> piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a
> domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.
>   The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and
> misdirection...
>

Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the
computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.

>
>
>
>>
>> Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity,
>> because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which
>> all "nows" are equally real.
>>
>
> No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that
> can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it.
>

Different parts of an object can exist in different times (not a single
instant) for two different observers in the same place.  How can an older
version of this object exist simultaneously with a younger version of this
object, unless the object is a four-dimensional and exists in all its ages?
 SR proves that the present cannot be infinitely thin, and actually can be
made as spread out is as needed (given high enough speeds and large enough
distances).

> Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is
> no absolute space nor time.
>

That's not how Einstein understood it.

> SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to navigate
> our local regions.
>

It is incompatible not only with an objective present, but also the idea
that objects only exist at one instant of time. Imagine a device with two
clocks separated by a pole.  One person standing still between the clocks
says the clocks are synchronized.  Som

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Hi Jason,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jason,
>>
>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
>> the discussion here.
>>
>
> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
> fundamental rather than emergent.
>

How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses
the obvious.



>
>
>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to
>> understand.
>>
>
> Right, that is good.
>
>
>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>
>
> Isn't that how explanations work?
>
>
>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>
>
> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There
> is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability
> to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a
> series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman
> expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea,
> since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring
> tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some
> evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
> processing done by our brain.
>


Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge. Where does that which
drives the emergence obtain?



>
>
>>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
>> appearance of change.
>>
>
> It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look
> for explanations of it.
>

Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned
to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the
persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a
piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a
domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.
  The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and
misdirection...



>
> Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity,
> because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which
> all "nows" are equally real.
>

No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that
can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it. Conformally and
faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is no absolute space
nor time. SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to
navigate our local regions.
  Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the
H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?



>
> Jason
>
> We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation,
>> but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Jason,

   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?

>>>
>>> Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
>>> does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
>>> destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?
>>>
>>> Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation
>>> tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.
>>>  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to
>>> your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state
>>> change your conscious state for x=2?
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>


 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>
>  --
>>> 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/gro

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear Jason,
>
>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
> the discussion here.
>

I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
fundamental rather than emergent.


> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to
> understand.
>

Right, that is good.


> Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>

Isn't that how explanations work?


> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>

It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There is
a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability to
experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a series
of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman
expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea,
since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring
tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some
evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
processing done by our brain.


>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
> appearance of change.
>

It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look
for explanations of it.

Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity,
because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which
all "nows" are equally real.

Jason

We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation, but
> the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>>   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
>> does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
>> destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?
>>
>> Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation
>> tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.
>>  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to
>> your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state
>> change your conscious state for x=2?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>



 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

  --
>> 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 an

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things
we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the
point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking)
as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon
alighting on the answer.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>>   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?
>>
>
> Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
> does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
> destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?
>
> Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing
> the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.  If x=1
> corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your
> consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change
> your conscious state for x=2?
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>  --
> 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
>   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?
>

Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?

Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation tracing
the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.  If x=1
corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to your
consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state change
your conscious state for x=2?

Jason

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>

-- 
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 11:54 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>   On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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 betwee

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Hi Jason,

  So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> 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  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  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 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 11:43 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> That is the only way to make progress.  Propose theories, and falsify
> them.  Ockham says between theories that make equal predictions, simpler
> ones are better, and it for theories of equal simplicity, ones that can
> explain more are also better.  Anti-realist interpretations of QM have no
> adequate explanation for quantum computers.
>
>
> There's nothing "anti-realist" about relational or Bayesian subjective
> interpretations, they just don't reify the wave function as you would like
> them to.  Bohm used to make the same complaint that other theories weren't
> "realistic".  Fuchs et al have as good an explanation of quantum computers
> as any dynamic quantum system, there's nothing special about computers -
> it's just not one that appeals to you.
>

Computers in particular, while not special, are good examples because they
illustrate that nothing known in our universe (aside from the
superposition) has the necessarily complexity to produce answers to certain
complex problems.


>
>
> They say "don't ask" on fundamental questions, which is never a good
> attitude to have in science.
>
>
> That's your straw man attribution.  You've apparently stopped asking and
> decided you have the answer.
>

I would rather choose a speculative interpretation that turns out to be
wrong then say QM needs no interpretation, nor should we look for one, as
the paper you recently cited suggested.


>
> Brent
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret,
> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct
> which, with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes
> observed phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is
> solely and precisely that it is  expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann
>

If Fuchs et al operated according to this quote, they would see that a
model is not the same thing as the description/predictions of observed
phenomena that it makes.

If we identify reality only with observed phenomena, what is to prevent us
from falling into solipsism or idealism?

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 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb 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 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 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 repre

Re: What are wavefunctions?


On 12/29/2013 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That is the only way to make progress.  Propose theories, and falsify them.  Ockham says 
between theories that make equal predictions, simpler ones are better, and it for 
theories of equal simplicity, ones that can explain more are also better.  Anti-realist 
interpretations of QM have no adequate explanation for quantum computers.


There's nothing "anti-realist" about relational or Bayesian subjective interpretations, 
they just don't reify the wave function as you would like them to.  Bohm used to make the 
same complaint that other theories weren't "realistic".  Fuchs et al have as good an 
explanation of quantum computers as any dynamic quantum system, there's nothing special 
about computers - it's just not one that appeals to you.


They say "don't ask" on fundamental questions, which is never a good attitude to have in 
science.


That's your straw man attribution.  You've apparently stopped asking and decided you have 
the answer.


Brent
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make 
models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain 
verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a 
mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

--—John von Neumann

--
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  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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 nu

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  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 8:19 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.
>
> 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

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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 'dead&alive'
>>> 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 st

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  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 12/29/2013 5:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

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 s

Re: Dear Edgar Owen

2013-12-29 Thread John Mikes

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.
>
> 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 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 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: 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  >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 .
> 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..

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 .
> 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: Dear Edgar Owen

On 30 December 2013 14:22, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux  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..

Once more unto the breach...

On 30 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen  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: 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 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..

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: Dear Edgar Owen


On 12/29/2013 4:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux > 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..

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 obviou

Re: "humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,"

2013-12-29 Thread Craig Weinberg



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 .
> 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.
>
>
> 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 shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 30 December 2013 12:18, 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.
>

So far so good...


> Thus a new
>
universe of energy is being created at every new moment of time.
>

...and you blew it. That is not a "thus", and bodes ill for anything
further you said beyond this point making sense.

Still, maybe you will answer my earlier question (about what is doing the
computing, and so on) in a way that does make sense, and we can carry on
from there.

-- 
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  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 stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 30 December 2013 11:55, Pierz  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 12:03, Richard Ruquist  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: Dear Edgar Owen

On 30 December 2013 12:57, Quentin Anciaux  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..

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: Bruno's mathematical reality


On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb 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 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 its original size.  If you convert a number 
like "55

Re: Dear Edgar Owen

2013-12-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Well Mr. Owen use 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 ?

Quentin


2013/12/30 freqflyer07281972 

> 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.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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 3:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb 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 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 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 'dead&alive' 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

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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: 73555318547116177

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

ALL HAIL TIME CUBE!! 

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  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..

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  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..

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.

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 5:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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 'dead&alive'
>> 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

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. 

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: 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.

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 >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..

2013-12-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

PS: You can blame me for Roger as well.


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Richard Ruquist  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  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.
>>
>
>

-- 
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..

2013-12-29 Thread Richard Ruquist

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  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.
>

-- 
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..

2013-12-29 Thread Pierz

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: Bruno's mathematical reality


On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb 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: What are wavefunctions?

On 12/29/2013 2:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb 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 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 'dead&alive' 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 state

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: Bruno's mathematical reality

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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

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  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 1:47 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/28/2013 6:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/28/2013 4:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  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 'dead&alive' 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: What are wavefunctions?

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  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: Bruno's mathematical reality


On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb > 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: Bruno's mathematical reality

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb  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: 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 
> > 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: 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?

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR  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: 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

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  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

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 >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: 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  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  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: What are wavefunctions?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, meekerdb  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: All randomness is quantum...

Well OK, but that's *one* way in which randomness isn't quantum.


On 30 December 2013 07:59, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen  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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 30 December 2013 06:16, Edgar L. Owen  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 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 
> 'parado

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  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: God or not?

On 12/29/2013 8:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal > 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

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.

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: 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/ 



--
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 ?

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: All randomness is quantum...


On 12/29/2013 2:37 AM, LizR wrote:
On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen 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: God or not?

On 29 Dec 2013, at 17:14, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal   
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: 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   
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  
 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  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: 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

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" > 
> 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  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/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.

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 http://groups.google.com/

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?




On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  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   
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  
 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  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.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..




On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:17 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"  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   
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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen  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: All randomness is quantum...




On Dec 29, 2013, at 4:37 AM, LizR  wrote:


On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen  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: God or not?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal  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 29 Dec 2013, at 11:37, LizR wrote:


On 29 December 2013 13:11, Edgar L. Owen  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: 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  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  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 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 an

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
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
...

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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
wrote:

On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, "Edgar L. Owen"
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
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

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.

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,

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 tim

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   
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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?