Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 5 February 2014 23:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 07:54, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: To be clear, what I find problematic is the question of whether consciousness can cause someone to refer to it. That is a good question. (I will answer it positively). It can't do this by definition if it's epiphenomenal. OK. That will be the reason why I want to discard epiphenomenalism. However, you can declare that you are conscious and while the declaration is explainable in purely physical terms, it may be associated with actual consciousness. Perhaps this is nitpicking. It is not nitpicking, as eventually this is the crux of the matter. See below. I don't believe that mind can act on anything except in a manner of speaking, but again maybe this is nitpicking. The important thing is that if mind had separate causal efficacy we would observe miraculous events in the brain, and we don't observe such events. Even with comp in the absence of a basic physical reality, you could say there is no *reason* why subjectivity should exist - it just does. Let us imagine that you do tell us that you are conscious. Now, I look at myself, and I know what I am conscious means, in some direct intuition, and so, I will suppose that you saying refer to that fact, which I understand: you are indeed conscious. But then you add that your consciousness has no role at all in your utterance of I am conscious. This seems to me like saying I am conscious, but my utterance of it is the one of my body-zombie, who by some kind of mysterious chance happens to say a truth about me, given that you don't causally associate your first person observation of your consciousness with the utterance. Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is). You could say I have headache, which is a first person experience, and, for that reason I will take an aspirin, yet the existence of that first person headache is not used by my brain to make me taking the aspirin. That seems close to non-sense to me. It prevents you to be a zombie, but makes you deluded in all high level person behavior. A zombie would take an aspirin as well, wouldn't it? Otherwise its zombie deception would be obvious. In fact, we don't even need to talk on consciousness. I think it makes sense to say that a program can have a high level causal efficacy, even when the behavior does not violate the laws of physics or arithmetic which supports that high level efficacy. For example, nobody will say that Deep Blue win the chess tournament, because this NAND receives this inputs and then (followed by a lengthy description of all the low level happenings). We will explain deep blue behavior in terms of most of its high level ability. We will say he lost that game because he did not recognize that his opponents has made a Nimzovitch entry, or he win that game because it tested more possibilities than the opponents. That will be the real (or more genuine) explanation, both for the computer scientists who programmed deep blue, and for the chess players. Indeed the use of the NAND gates are somehow entirely irrelevant, we could have programmed deep blue on another type of machine. As complex entities, we need to have higher level description and explanation, and are necessarily ignorant of our lower levels, which might only be the support of our explanation, and is different from the more genuine high level explanation. In that way, we can recover the sense of I take an aspirin because I have a persistent headache since the morning. God might know that your body takes an aspirin because it obeys to SWE equation, but the SWE is only a context in which a person with a first person headache experience can take an aspirin. It is not the cause or the explanation of your behavior. You need to be God, to say that your consciousness has no role, and from God's view, I can make sense, but everything get wrong, hereby, simply because we are not in that God position. OK? I don't really disagree with any of that, but I would still say that chess program makes moves due to the activity of electrons in semiconductors, not because it is exercising a particular strategy except in a manner of speaking. But the substantive point I want to make is that there is no downward causation, for if there were we would observe magical events. If you accept that then I agree with you, any apparent disagreement is really just semantics. I don't think Craig accepts that: he agrees that there are no magical events in the brain but, inconsistently, he also believes that the brain exhibits behaviour not entirely explained by the physics. I am not sure if I succeed to be as clear as I would like. I do think that you make a confusion between G* and S4Grz. G* knows that []p = []p p (so it knows that the body-zombie has a
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 5 February 2014 23:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness, then anything further you have to say, such as remarks about how weird it sounds, will not negate it. That's the same as saying If I were proved right, then I couldn't have been wrong. The fact though that we cannot show a physical phenomena which necessarily leads to consciousness and there is no reason to suppose that one could ever be shown (especially since 'showing' only happens within consciousness, or else consciousness would be redundant). The proof is the argument I have cited several times. If it's valid, any objections are then pointless, like the Pythagoreans complaining that irrational numbers offend their sense of aesthetics. You have not shown that the argument is invalid. The argument can't be shown to be invalid, because the problem with the argument is that there is a universe which exists outside of all argument, through which argument itself is defined. The argument may be able to silence objections, but that doesn't mean the argument is correct. Again, that's like the Pythagoreans deciding to suppress the evidence for irrational numbers because they believed in a higher aesthetic cause. That's like having to go back more than 2000 years to find a fallacious political justification for suppressing my argument rather than a reason that makes sense. My point is that an argument that is logically sound trumps any aesthetic objections to its conclusion. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 6 February 2014 21:59, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: My point is that an argument that is logically sound trumps any aesthetic objections to its conclusion. Naah, I don't like the sound of that. :-) -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even biosphere. No. Read again I'm not sure how significant that is. I mean, my hard drive could in principle store something like 2 ^ 4,500,000,000,000 possible combinations of bits, which is well above Lloyd's limit, but as far as I know it isn't alive. (Although it does keep refusing to open the DVD bay doors...) On 6 February 2014 20:29, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Opps. My memory is not eidetic as well. Here is the pertinent quote from Davies article referenced above: For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^ 120 when the number of amino acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004). Curiously, 60 amino acids is about the size of the smallest functional protein, suggesting that the threshold for life might correspond to the threshold for strong emergence, supporting the contention that life is an emergent phenomenon (in the strong sense of emergence). On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:31 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: This is a very interesting point. What is the estimated capacity of the human brain? I seem to recalls some 10^17 bits being mentioned somewhere, or at least that figure has stuck in my mind (but not having an eidetic memory, or much of a normal one, I can't say where from). PCW Davies claims that a human brain neuron requires about 10^120 bits; and therefore, since this is the Lloyd Limit for the available bits in our observable universe, neurons may be at the threshold for consciousness. http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0602/0602420.pdf On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space (in which one space axis is time) that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe much like the Akashic Records. Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space. Richard On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com questionhttp://www.quora.com/digest/track_click?hash=2e8ec7de05b636790212092c83f0936eaoid=pLlVYjWVKaaoty=2ty_data=4012999ty=1digest_id=241884556click_pos=1st=1391558946766537source=3stories=1_L4sR6imoEQB%7C1_aytbQbnb2zW%7C1_jA8otFvN9FH%7C1_4XH6bzBFPwr%7C1_4TMBUpDzRpy%7C1_8f6Kgdm4jXW%7C1_XDaAF5TDFVy%7C1_zsSejxTjfe6v=2aty=4. People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in *perfect *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Block Universes
Brent, Yes, and of course the fact that the age of the universe will pretty certainly be calculated everywhere in the universe as the same 13.7 billion years strongly suggest there is a common present universal present moment or time. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:38:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
PIerz, Of course the very concept of true eidetic memory is totally impossible. The total amount of data in the local environment in any single second is many orders of magnitude greater than the total capacity of a human brain. No one comes even vaguely close e.g. to remembering the position of every leaf in the trees around him in a forest, or every leaf of grass and all the insects. All this stuff is individually viewable at any given time but simply can't be remembered, much less how all that is changing every second. What is really meant by eidetic memory is just memory superior in detail to ordinary memory. It's just one more of the many buzz concepts scientists invent without thinking through the actual implications.. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:32:51 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com questionhttp://www.quora.com/digest/track_click?hash=2e8ec7de05b636790212092c83f0936eaoid=pLlVYjWVKaaoty=2ty_data=4012999ty=1digest_id=241884556click_pos=1st=1391558946766537source=3stories=1_L4sR6imoEQB%7C1_aytbQbnb2zW%7C1_jA8otFvN9FH%7C1_4XH6bzBFPwr%7C1_4TMBUpDzRpy%7C1_8f6Kgdm4jXW%7C1_XDaAF5TDFVy%7C1_zsSejxTjfe6v=2aty=4. People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in *perfect *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain. -- 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:59:45 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 5 February 2014 23:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness, then anything further you have to say, such as remarks about how weird it sounds, will not negate it. That's the same as saying If I were proved right, then I couldn't have been wrong. The fact though that we cannot show a physical phenomena which necessarily leads to consciousness and there is no reason to suppose that one could ever be shown (especially since 'showing' only happens within consciousness, or else consciousness would be redundant). The proof is the argument I have cited several times. If it's valid, any objections are then pointless, like the Pythagoreans complaining that irrational numbers offend their sense of aesthetics. You have not shown that the argument is invalid. The argument can't be shown to be invalid, because the problem with the argument is that there is a universe which exists outside of all argument, through which argument itself is defined. The argument may be able to silence objections, but that doesn't mean the argument is correct. Again, that's like the Pythagoreans deciding to suppress the evidence for irrational numbers because they believed in a higher aesthetic cause. That's like having to go back more than 2000 years to find a fallacious political justification for suppressing my argument rather than a reason that makes sense. My point is that an argument that is logically sound trumps any aesthetic objections to its conclusion. That's because you identify with the logical aesthetic personally. If someone changes your brain chemistry, you could believe the opposite, or if you were tortured enough, you would love Big Brother. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
Richard, In a weak sense this Akashic records stuff has some merit. The theory I present in my book is that reality is computational. This means that the computational interactions of information forms changes those information forms and those changes encode prior information states in a distributed fashion among subsequent information states. I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle'. Which states that all current information contains distributed traces of past information, all the way back to the big bang. Thus given sufficient capability it is possible to 'read' past information states from current information states. This is of course obviously the basis of scientific method and all knowledge but it does have deeper implications. Why? Because it implies that everything without exception is only the information of what it is. And the information of what it is is the current result of all its past computational interactions, Thus everything without exception is its information history, its computational history. And that all past information still exists in a distributed manner in all current information (subject to some constraints imposed by quantum granularity). And some other stuff as well... So in that sense, it is possible to theoretically read all information from the current information state of the universe. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:58:32 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: An aspect of my string cosmology is that the metaverse contains a 4D-space (in which one space axis is time) that records every event that ever happened in this and every universe much like the Akashic Records. Eidetics and gurus can apparently time travel in this block-space. Richard On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com questionhttp://www.quora.com/digest/track_click?hash=2e8ec7de05b636790212092c83f0936eaoid=pLlVYjWVKaaoty=2ty_data=4012999ty=1digest_id=241884556click_pos=1st=1391558946766537source=3stories=1_L4sR6imoEQB%7C1_aytbQbnb2zW%7C1_jA8otFvN9FH%7C1_4XH6bzBFPwr%7C1_4TMBUpDzRpy%7C1_8f6Kgdm4jXW%7C1_XDaAF5TDFVy%7C1_zsSejxTjfe6v=2aty=4. People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in *perfect *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Real science versus interpretations of science
Ghibbsa, Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration! :-) Best, Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:02:23 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:18:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Dear Ghibbsa, Thanks for the warm and friendly tone of your posts! That's rather the exception here and you set a high standard and a great example for other posters. I think you've been treated really well. It's kind of a given people reject a theory unless they say otherwise. I certainly disagree with your opinion on Bruno's theory All I remember saying was the structure was really excellent. You haven't looked at it to disagree and some other things as well, but you always present them in a friendly intelligent manner benefiting an objective discussion of MY ideas among fried nds. Only tongue in cheek but I've corrected your sentence for how you show up to other people. It always baffles me why so many here and elsewhere get so incensed and combatative when discussing what are just abstract ideas and theories. So many seem to have such a strong personal investment in their beliefs which makes one suspect they are as much faith based as based in reason. Get your house order in dude. They listened and criticized and at no point gratuitously trashed your theory. What did you do for them? But thankfully you seem to be the happy exception here. Much appreciated! the quality I admire is to see someone treat praise no different than criticism. On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:29:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I think of my book and theories more as meta-science or philosophy, I think that's reasonable but... but the topics treated are what nearly everyone else considers to be science. Yeah I agree with this. I don't have the skills to feedback on the quality of your theories, but at the structure level which is where I get interested more, I can certainly say I think many of your explanations have good structure and approach that is over and above philosophy. It's not science, but no one would expect to cover the breadth you have and get a science finish. But you know, you've brought it to a good intermediary position. I wouldn't be able to say that about the vast majority of philosophy as in most cases the decisions already embedded as to approach have usually ruled out a science standard in the future. In my view MWI, block universes, wavefunction collapse, etc. none of these are real science, only interpretations of science. Well look...my view at this stage would be that we'd all have to do a lot of work to get our inner visions of science aligned, for statements like yours above to be computable (by me). What I would say is that I wouldn't read this list if I wasn't interested in the people and their ideas. I enjoy 'trying on' ideas even if deep down I know my gut is never going to let me buy into it on a long term basis. If you're up for suggestions, I'd definitely recommend you try that out for yourself. You're obviously very strong minded, so there's little vulnerability there that you'll try on an idea that isn't your theory, or that is a criticism to your theory, and find yourself whirled off into someone else's vision never to see your own again :o) Try itit's fun...and you'll find the knock-on effects interesting in other ways. Yes, if we understand reality better it should definitely lead to better real science, and most certainly to better understanding. Meta-science helps us to UNDERSTAND real science in human terms. What you say is reasonable. Like a lot of people I am in a long term work on a theory, and you probably know yourself that one of the downsides is that there can come a time when your world view is so different that it's almost alien to othersand also that it is isolating because you might not agree with anything anymore, but might not be ready to explain why. I think that's something a lot of people on lists like this know about. One of the things I really like about reading Bruno, for example, is all the crazy talk about worlds and dreams and things being impossible to communicate. I really relate to all that as a position to be in ! Your last comments seem to have to do with DOING science, with scientific method, rather than the actual science that gets done. That's a fair comment. Something I personally try to remember in this sort of situation, is that the other person - you - probably defined science with a sort of context, or purpose, in mind. I'm sure you have more to say about the nature of science. It might be a case of you, you used a working definition
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, The Hubble age of the universe just means that most observers throughout the unvierse calculate nearly identical CLOCK times for that age. There will be local differences but these will mostly be small due to averaging effects over the life of the universe. This Hubble age is NOT its p-time age, which is the p-time distance from the present moment to the big ban and which will be the 'same' (in a topological rather than a dimensionally measurable sense) for all observers. But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Ghibbsa, But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very present moment. That's a key insight to the theory. The fact that we can't determine exactly what the clock time is there of that present moment, or the fact that they might be doing things faster or slower than we are doesn't falsify that they are doing something right now. The fact that we may not be able to determine what they are doing, doesn't mean they aren't doing something After all that's also true of any two observers including e.g. astronauts on the space station. Do we doubt that they are actually doing something up there right now in this present moment? No, of course not. And the difference with Andromeda is only a matter of degree. thus if we can claim a present moment for the space station, we can for Andromeda also. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:26:37 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:53:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, A couple of points in response: 1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows just fine in SR and GR. No clock time simultaneity of distant (relativistic is a better descriptor) events does NOT imply time is not flowing at those events. This is quite clear. It's a fundamental assumption of relativity that time flows. In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it requires everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact that everything always travels at the speed of light through spacetime. I find it baffling that so many can't grasp this simple fact. 2. You complain about me not answering a few of your questions. As I've explained before I have limited time to post here because running my business keeps me very busy. And please note that a lot of my posts have received NO answers at all either, e.g. a. Several major posts, some as new topics, on my theory of how spacetime emerges from quantum events. Apparently this has just sailed over everyone's heads with not a single meaningful comment, not even any negative ones which is pretty surprising among this crowd! Apparently no one is interested in understanding the nature of time at the quantum level? b. My post on a solution to Newton's Bucket. Also no relevant responses. c. Several thought experiments lending very strong support to my present moment theory, posted just a couple days ago. Again zero response. And weren't those directed to YOU? d. Several thought experiments designed to dig into the fine points of various aspects of time dilation. Again only a vague comment or two on 'asymmetry' but zero actual analysis of the points I raised. e. Several other new topics on basic issues of science and epistemology. Again no relevant responses. So don't be so quick to criticize me for not responding to every one of your questions. I received several hundred emails a day. I respond to most, delete some, but have a list of several dozen from this forum I hope to reply to given time. And when I do reply to posts with substantive topics, I always try to give the time to reply carefully and reply only when my responses have been well thought out... So with limited posting time I have to be selective in my responses. Others here seem to have a lot more time available to post here and wish I did also... As for your comment that you have no idea what moving in clock time could mean pull your head out of your physics books and watch your watch for a little while and see if the hands are moving. If not, you are in block time. If they are, you are in the normal reality that everyone else is. And actually yes, the fact that clock time does move perceptibly DOES imply a separate present moment in which clock time moves. You've hit on one of the major arguments FOR a present moment. But I know this direct observation that you can repeat over and over and over and confirm, (which has the same status of all scientific observations and measurements) doesn't carry any weight at all with you. However in denying it you are denying the most basic fact of your own existence. Edgar The way I used to think p-time, that I can explicitly remember, was occasionally looking up into the starry night at Andromeda and saying to someone no matter where Andromeda is now these millions years after where it is up in the sky there, wherever it is if there are thinking people up there, then some of them could be thinking their thoughts right now, maybe looking right back at me, and that's a sense in which things are connected Or something like that. And for me that would be a hugely important sense of connection. And it was. It's also - I think - the sense in which p-time would need to be true, given it's an idea deriving from that kind of intuitive
Re: Block Universes
Brent, Here once again you are talking about clock time simultaneity. And here again I agree. But you still don't grasp that is NOT the common p-time present moment IN WHICH clock times are either simultaneous or not. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:45:24 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Of course it can't give great precision because the recombination event must have had significant duration. But aside from all the practical problems I don't see a problem in principle. From the CMB to a given 4-point in the universe there is a world line that is longest and that length can be used as a t-label for that point. It may be a rather convoluted world line near a BH, but I think it will still exist. That's what you would call the co-moving coordinate time. Of course there are other coordinate times that imply different 3-surfaces of simultaneity. Ned Wright discusses several in his UCLA tutorial. Edgar's error is not that you can't define simultaneity, it's that you can't define a *unique* simultaneity. Some ways have some physical motiviation, i.e. they make some calculation easier because they incorporate some physical symmetry. That's what the idealized FLRW model does. Even if you could measure the co-moving time I suggest above it would be useless because it would introduce all the bumps that you want to average over anyway. I'm just saying the bumps don't prevent its definition. 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Of course it can't give great precision because the recombination event must have had significant duration. But aside from all the practical problems I don't see a problem in principle. From the CMB to a given 4-point in the universe there is a world line that is longest and that length can be used as a t-label for that point. Ah, thanks, I had been thinking of it in terms of the idea that the observer always moves in such a way that the CMB doesn't appear redshifted or blueshifted (I don't know if that's consistently possible in a universe with a lot of localized changes in curvature), rather than the worldline of greatest proper time from the surface of last scattering. Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47450.html). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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. -- 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: Block Universes
2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47450.html). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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. -- 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
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: snip Why would I share an elementary belief that I understand to be false? Nobody ask you this. On the contrary, the idea is to start from what we can agree on. Given the complexity of the problem we talk about, we might even ask if we agree on the logical rules. Yes, we should. Ah? OK. I begin from the assumption that logical rules are abstracted from comparisons across sensory experiences, and therefore have no independent existence of their own or casual effect. That is not assumption. It might be part of a theory about the relations between minds and logic. What I meant by agreeing on logical rules was agreeing that if we prove in our theory some proposition A and if we prove in that theory some proposition B, we allow saying that we have prove the new proposition asserting that A and B. This is often written in some way, like A, B / (A B), or A B (A B) An important rule is the modus ponens, for example; A, A - B / B So my question is what does need to be explained in the axioms of arithmetic that I have given? For most people a first order logic axiom like 0 ≠ s(x) (for all x) is simpler to understand that any statement involving terms like sense or aesthetic. It's not simpler for me, or someone who doesn't know the language of mathematical notation. It is conceptually simpler. I could have written instead: 0 is not equal to the successor of any number. What are not and equal and successor if not aesthetic qualities in our imagination? They are simple 3p concept shared by all scientists. aesthetic qualities in our imagination refers to 1p. it might be that they live through us in the form of aesthetic qualities in our imagination. That is even plausible with comp, and we can talk about that in some possible thread. nevertheless, the meaning of aesthetic qualities in our imagination is far more complex that the meaning of not, equal and successor, when applied to natural numbers. Or write a longer sentence. It is intuitively trivial with the intended standard intuitive notion of numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Whatever you are thinking is intuitively trivial is probably exactly where I am saying that everything meaningful to consciousness must be. You talk again like the universal soul (S4Grz). Yes, from its point of view, consciousness is trivial. Indeed. But that's a fact of reality, not a theory capable of explaining that fact. If only I could find a way to motivate you to do the hard work. I have to figure out what is meant by s(x), which distracts me from the question of whether s(x) is actually fictional and derived from a whole history of philosophical formulation. You confuse the intended notion with the relation between the humans and that notion. We can always come back on this, but you should appeal to such side notion only when you think that it invalidate the reasoning. If not you do what we call in french un procès d'intention, that is, you attribute to your opponents statements that he never did. I wasn't trying to say anything intentional, but the framing of the question in mathematical terms automatically buries the roots of mathematics itself, Not necessarily. And the way I proceed in the UDA guaranties that we don't lost the first person, as the questions are all addressed to her. Then the same is done in AUDA, except we need some help from the 3p (sharable notion) self of the machine to define the first person (in the Theaetetus' way). which is what I am saying is already sense and consciousness (not human of course). You are correct on this, for the 1p view. That is, crazily enough, a theorem in arithmetic. But that truth is not communicable by the machine itself, it can even, in some sense, become false if asserted. Once you know how to read the language, the sense making that it took to get there, such as all of the childhood wiring of tactile and visual metaphors crafted by patient teachers, are elided into the sub-personal awareness. We do that all the time. Again, if you are willing to argue, you must invoke the elision only if it invalidates the argument. It does invalidate the argument. I'm explaining why it might seem to you, and to many people, that mathematical abstractions could be primitive. I'm saying that mathematical thoughts emerge from much simpler feelings and expectations which are perceptual and tangible rather than conceptual. Unfortunately that is refuted. All you can do is to find some other universal Turing system who primitive will look like being simpler than addition and multiplication, but you cannot explain the natural numbers with anything less than a Turing complete system.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the curvature of a standard hypersphere which I'm beginning to doubt) rather than of some particular FRW universe which it may be defined in terms of. So this remains to be seen. But next you are putting words in my mouth. I do NOT say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe. That's a basic misunderstanding of my model. I say quite the opposite, that there is a common universal present moment of p-time that all observers in the universe exist within, because the present moment of p-time is the only locus of actual reality, and this is individually confirmed by direct observation by all observers. But apparently you don't accept that direct empirical observation is valid? I also say that once that is established for each individual observer, then it is easy to demonstrate that that same present moment is common to all observers. So there is no issue of determining which events are simultaneous in p-time because all events that are actually occurring occur only in the present moment of p-time. As for establishing the 'simultaneity' of past moments of p-time they don't really have a metric associated with them though you keep trying to tell me that coordinate time might provide one, but I don't see that yet. Again, like consciousness, it's a verifiable empirical observation even though no metric is associated with it. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:43:45 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47450.html). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group
Re: Unput and Onput
On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: Numbers can be derived from sensible physics That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their description of physics. Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like density or mass. That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious physicists are attracted to this, but they don't convince me). Can you explain why? Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion. It has nothing to do with physics. But physics can implement them, and that notion is not that obvious. Just as Comp does a brute appropriation of qualia under 1p uncertainty, No. That would be a confusion between []p and []p p (or others). Only God can do that confusion. You seem to go back and forth between making qualia something transcendent and private, to making it somehow inevitable mathematically. Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot avoid some private transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic, with standard definition for transcendence. If we ask ourselves, 'Does being a good mathematician require you to be a good artist or musician?', the answer I think is no. I am not sure. But good mathematician is vague. Good artist also. If we ask 'Does being a good artist or musician require us to be a good mathematician?' the answer is also no. Why is the relation between math, physics, and science so obvious, Such relation are not obvious. That is why we discuss them. Indeed comp changes them radically. but the relation between any of those and the arts is not so obvious? because to add numbers you need few bytes. To pain Mona Lisa, you nee much more bytes, and richer 1p experiences. physics can do a brute appropriation of arithmetic under material topology. Some material disposition can be shown to be Turing universal. But this is proved in showing how such system can implement a universal machine (quantum or not quantum one). Don't you just have to go to a level of description where the material appears granular. I don't really get the argument that all matter is computable but not all computation can be materialized. Comp implies that matter is not computable. materialization is an emergent phenomenon on coherence conditions on infinite sum of computations. It would explain why Turing universality does not apply to gases It applies to gases. technically no usable, as it is hard to put all the gaz molecules Not talking about gas molecules, I'm talking about a volume of ideal gas. at the right position at the right time, but in principle, gases, in some volume, are Turing universal system. You would need to control that volume with non-gaseous containers and valves. Gas is still not Turing universal as an uncontained ideal gas. Computation requires formal, object-like units...because arithmetic is not really universal, it is only low level. and empty space. Hmm... Quantum vacuum is Turing universal. I think. I'm talking about an ideal vacuum though, not the vacuum that we imagine is full of particle-waves or probability juice. If I'm right about the sense primitive, energy exists only within matter, and not in space. For classical physics, you need at least three bodies. Computers require object-like properties to control and measure digitally. Yes. You often say, we can do that, but this makes sense only if you do it actually. Some people might say that it is being done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDCwrbqHfTM The Future of Computing -- Reuniting Bits and Atoms I hope you are not serious. Interesting but non relevant. This worries me when you give a blanket denial with no explanation. Why is it not serious? If we can make computer language out of stuff, then why would it not follow that computation is an emergent property of stuff? Then you need to change the definition of computation. I use it in its standard sense, the one notion discovered by Babbage, Church, Post, Turing, and Markov. The Future of Computing -- Reuniting Bits and Atoms as easily as physics can be derived from sensible numbers. Physics is not yet extracted, only the or some quantum tautologies, and that was not that much easy, at least for me ... But the principle of the possibility is not difficult, at least, not for anyone who has ever programmed a player-missile graphic/ avatar/collision detection in a game. On the contrary. Hmm... I see you have not yet grasped the
Re: Block Universes
Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47450.html). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration! :-) Best, Edgar what you were actually doing was making an opportunity to complain and put down everyone else, with yourself firmly in the frame of how to do things right. Which first of all is the opposite of praising the other person, because it's at their expense. I mean, come on, that's an insult if anything. -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration! :-) Best, Edgar what you were actually doing was making an opportunity to complain and put down everyone else, with yourself firmly in the frame of how to do things right. Which first of all is the opposite of praising the other person, because it's at their expense. I mean, come on, that's an insult if anything. -- 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: Block Universes
On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one reality against others. I agree with Deutsch's idea that Cramer transactional theory is still a MWI, + initial conditions selecting a reality. Which special boundary conditions? The only ones in an EPR experiment are the emitter and measuring device settings. That will not be enough, I think. You need the state of the prepared particle (say), and the measuring device + the result you measure on the particle. Or worst, the end state of the physical universe. You can't select one reality among all, and keep the interference right for arbitrary measurement, without selecting the whole reversible unique history. The reality selected is the one with those settings The setting by itself does not determine that reality. - (anyway, I don't think the components of an EPR system can decohere during the experiment, or the effect would be lost - so there is only one reality involved). In all other cases - where the system isn't carefully prepared to ensure time symmetry is preserved - the effects of time symmetry will be washed out by the entropy gradient and isn't noticable at the macro level. I'm not talking about Cramer. I found his theory too baroque to understand. This is just Huw Price et al saying that logically, given that physics is time symmetric, we can expect certain things to be possible - like EPR. EPR is not just possible, it is necessary, in QM. The mechanics of how or if it works I leave to people able to do the calculations. We can come back on this, but my personal understanding of retrieving unicity of outcome in the quantum description relies on fixing the particles positions (say) completely at *some* time (by irreversibilty, we might recover the initial and final state defining the whole unique history). I don't like this, because it is like QM + conspiratorial hidden positions (perhaps even depending on a particular base). I have not read Huw Price, and my reading of Cramer is very old. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:00:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: snip Why would I share an elementary belief that I understand to be false? Nobody ask you this. On the contrary, the idea is to start from what we can agree on. Given the complexity of the problem we talk about, we might even ask if we agree on the logical rules. Yes, we should. Ah? OK. I begin from the assumption that logical rules are abstracted from comparisons across sensory experiences, and therefore have no independent existence of their own or casual effect. That is not assumption. It might be part of a theory about the relations between minds and logic. Why isn't is an assumption? I'm assuming that the ontology of logic is such that it supervenes on sense experience (minds are not necessarily involved)/ What I meant by agreeing on logical rules was agreeing that if we prove in our theory some proposition A and if we prove in that theory some proposition B, we allow saying that we have prove the new proposition asserting that A and B. This is often written in some way, like A, B / (A B), or * A B * (A B) An important rule is the modus ponens, for example; A, A - B / B Who are we? What is allow? What is prove? What is a proposition? I'm not trying to learn logic, I'm trying to show that logic cannot be used to take us all the way to understanding consciousness - and therefore logic cannot be used to understand why it cannot be used either. So my question is what does need to be explained in the axioms of arithmetic that I have given? For most people a first order logic axiom like 0 ≠ s(x) (for all x) is simpler to understand that any statement involving terms like sense or aesthetic. It's not simpler for me, or someone who doesn't know the language of mathematical notation. It is conceptually simpler. I could have written instead: 0 is not equal to the successor of any number. What are not and equal and successor if not aesthetic qualities in our imagination? They are simple 3p concept shared by all scientists. simple 3p concepts shared by all scientists refers to consensual abstractions that are subject to revision. aesthetic qualities in our imagination refers to 1p. Yes. Just like everything we that we can experience is the 1p of our skin, eyes, tongue, brain, molecules... it might be that they live through us in the form of aesthetic qualities in our imagination. We know that they do. What we do not know is that they live anywhere else. Once you take the omnipotence and omniscience that you lend to numbers, and translate them into sensory-motive capabilities, then you have the much more reasonable, non-magical property of permeability of nested aesthetic acquaintance. That is even plausible with comp, and we can talk about that in some possible thread. nevertheless, the meaning of aesthetic qualities in our imagination is far more complex that the meaning of not, equal and successor, when applied to natural numbers. You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing in judging a book by its local cover. Not, equal, and successor are simple to *you*, but what those concepts point to is a theoretical understanding which is not shared by infants. Infants would not understand the terms aesthetic... but they are experiencing them directly and understand that they are. Or write a longer sentence. It is intuitively trivial with the intended standard intuitive notion of numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... Whatever you are thinking is intuitively trivial is probably exactly where I am saying that everything meaningful to consciousness must be. You talk again like the universal soul (S4Grz). Yes, from its point of view, consciousness is trivial. Indeed. But that's a fact of reality, not a theory capable of explaining that fact. Not sure what you mean. I'm not saying that consciousness is trivial, I am saying that the aspects which I am saying are critical are those which you view as trivial. The fact of reality is where we should start all explanation from. If only I could find a way to motivate you to do the hard work. What if understanding consciousness requires easy play instead?...or even absurd inevitable idling? I have to figure out what is meant by s(x), which distracts me from the question of whether s(x) is actually fictional and derived from a whole history of philosophical formulation. You confuse the intended notion with the relation between the humans and that notion. We can always come back on this, but you should appeal to such side notion only when you think that it invalidate the reasoning. If not you do what we call in french un
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'. Because you say we already have to previously define what the same present moment they meet in is (means) and do that independently of this coordinate time calculation. You first must define, rather than calculate, what a same point in spacetime means by the reflected light method which is fine for establishing two twins are at the same point in spacetime WHEN they are at the same place in space but not otherwise. You say that (using coordinate time calculations) For the twins, if you know the coordinates they departed Earth and their coordinate speeds when they departed, and you know the coordinates of any subsequent accelerations (or forces causing those accelerations), you can predict the different coordinates where they will reunite, and what proper time their clocks will show then. But that's exactly what the standard equations of relativity give you isn't it? Assuming that by the proper time their clocks will show then (when they meet) is just the t values their clocks read. So I fail to see what we get out of this approach that standard relativity calculations don't give us. Don't they give us the exact same results of two different times in a same point in spacetime that we've already defined independently of the calculations? If so I repeat my assertion that there is no calculation from coordinate time, or relativity in any form, that gives the twins having the exact same coordinate time reading on some cryptic clock that proves they are the same time as well as the same place when they meet. So again I repeat my assertion that the present moment is locally DEFINABLE (via reflected light) but NOT CALCULABLE by a coordinate time or any other approach. Therefore the present moment is a completely independent kind of time since it is not a calculable result of relativity. That's what I've always said, but I thought you were telling me that same points in spacetime were CALCULABLE with coordinate time, that there was some mysterious coordinate time calculation that made the twins' clocks come out the same t readings when they met proving that the meeting was at the same point in spacetime. Edgar On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:29:22 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Again, if I understand you, this is just a way to define 'same points in spacetime'. No, it's a way to physically define coordinate position and coordinate time in terms of actual physical clocks and rulers. The definition presupposes that you *already* have an operational definition of when events happen at the same point in spacetime, like the operational description I described earlier that you seemed to be happy to accept--I said in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/PBeMO1PpJmsJthat the same point in spacetime could be defined operationally in terms of them being able to send light to the other one and get the reflected light back in a negligible amount of their own clock time, with the light coming back showing the clock time of the other one, and you replied in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/DarNEwAiOp0Jthat Re your last paragraph, then we DO agree (and your note that that is measurable and confirmable by the zero light distance between them is a good one) My explanation of the physical meaning of coordinate systems said, for example, that if you say the event of twin A turning 30 happened at x=10,y=15,z=5,t=50, what that means is that if you consider the physical clock in the lattice at ruler-markings x=10,y=15,z=5, and we call this clock C, then the event of A turning 30 happens AT THE SAME POINT IN SPACETIME as the event of clock c reading a time of 50. Obviously this explanation is meaningless if you don't already have a way of deciding if two events happened at the same point in spacetime! But if you accept the operational definition above, then this tells you what it means physically to say that the event of A turning 30 happened at time-coordinate t=50 in some frame. Again there is no calculation that tells us the twins will meet at a new same point in spacetime from the original same point in spacetime. Did you want such a calculation? You asked 'what is that 'WHEN'? It is not A's clock time and it is not B's clock time', which seemed to be a question about the physical meaning of coordinate time. The usefulness of defining inertial coordinate systems of the type I described is that there is a set of known equations that make correct predictions in *all* such inertial coordinate systems. For example, they allow you to predict that if a clock is
Re: UDA and AUDA are the same thesis?
On 05 Feb 2014, at 22:24, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:57:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 02:37, Russell Standish wrote: I understand that BpDt gives one of von Neumann's quantum logics, but it still seems an enormous jump from there to the FPI, It will be the other way round. By UDA we have the FPI. To translate that FPI we need to define probability or measure on consistent extensions in arithmetic. By the FPI, to say that I will necessary drink coffee after the WM-duplication, means that I will get coffee in all consistent extensions (here W and M). I don't see how a probability=1 concept helps with the FPI, which requires probability 1 (p=0.5 at a minimum, for two equally probable possibilities). P(I get a coffee) = 1, in case you get a coffee in both W and M. P(laws of physics) = 1 (the laws of physics are invariant for the comp continuations, as they are all defined globally on all computations). It is an extreme ideal case, but it makes sense. P = 1 for the simple transportation, in the theoretical context, with all default assumptions. The []p will ensure that p is true in all accessible worlds. But unfortunately, []p is true for all p in the cul-de-sac world (a future exercise for Liz!), which shows that provability is not a probability, nor a measure of certainty. To get the certainty, we have to explicitly assume at least one accessible world, and this is done by imposing t, which imposes one accessible world, and makes disappear the cul-de-sac possible situation. I appreciate the no cul-de-sac result in the []pp hypostase, but does that really mean much when Kripke frames are lost? I guess you replace Kripke by Scott-Montegue, is that right? Yes, but the notion is still defined in G, where we have the Kripke structure. Then we loose the Kripke semantics, but this means only, here, that we get quasi-filters instead of filters. The semantics has to changed, but that is rather a good new, as we get some refinement on the notion of neighbors. Yes, for Z and X, and Z1 and X1, we can adopt the semantic of Scott-Montague, but we lost them on the [ ]* extensions. It is replaced by infinite sequences of such structures (which fit well with the probability on UD*). or to call the Deontic relation a Schroedinger equation, even a little abstract one. The deontic relation is []p - p. The little schroedinger equation will be p - []p (together with []p - p), Ah - it was 15 years ago when I read your (Lille) thesis cover-to-cover. My confusion no doubt comes from you introducing both concepts on the one page. I still slightly get the french words encore and deja confused, because they were introduced on the same page in my French text book. It is the one bringing back the symmetry, and leading to the quantum logic, and the proximity spaces (where the measure will live), thanks to Goldblatt results. I'd be interested in the proximity spaces. Is this a new result, or just some speculation? It is an old general result. Take an ortho-space, for example the linear vectorial space, with a scalar product. In such space, you can look at the lattice of all linear subspaces. you can interpret by intersection of subspaces (they are subspaces), and you can interpret the V, on two subspaces, by the least subspace containing the two subspaces. Ah, and you can interpret the negation, of A, by the greater subspace orthogonal to A. Then, if you interpret the atomic sentences, p, q, r by rays in that linear space, you get a (minimal) quantum logic. The probability to go from p to q is given, by QM, by the scalar product of normalized vector (rays) and is the square of the cosine of the angle between the two rays. OK? Let us a put a Kripke structure where world are quantum states, and thus subspaces. we say that p is accessible from g if the scalar product is not 0 (= if they are not orthogonal). That can be generalized on the subspaces. That define a quantum proximity relation (not being orthogonal). It is reflexive and symmetrical. But in comp we go in the other way: we get the ortho-structure, by the semantics of p-[]p + []p - p, and we define the proximity relation by the non-orthogonality. This is known (by quantum logicians). For example the logic B (p- []p + []p - p) is used to define a proximity relation on vague predicate in a study on vagueness by Williamson(*). Then Goldblatt use it also. The reverse is exploited too. Start from a Kripke multiverse M1, obeying p-[]p and []p - p (making the multiverse accessibility relation R1 symmetrical and reflexive, which I am explaining to Liz) Then build a multiverse M2, with the same worlds than M1, but with the *complementary* accessibility relation R2. That means: (alpha R1 beta) in M1 if and only if ~(alpha R2 beta) in M2. The reflexive relation get irreflexive, and the symmetries all vanishes.
Re: Unput and Onput
On 05 Feb 2014, at 23:36, meekerdb wrote: On 2/5/2014 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote: ... I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory. That is a technical issue only. As comp has to predict or re- predict all of physics, it is hardly not predictive. In particular, comp + Theaetetus already provide the logic of the observable, and up to now, it fits with the facts. Well it's no good saying it *must be* predictive - if it's true. That is the non trivial consequence comp. It is the sense of deriving physics from arithmetic. All rules of prediction about the observable reality *have to* be theorems in arithmetic, concerning bets by universal machines. One can say that about many theories - including string theory. OK. But string theory like QM have been build for doing that. Comp is just the idea that the brain is a machine, and the consequence is that the laws of physics are given by the relative measure on universal machine/numbers states. With comp, physics = the laws of the universal machine observable, with observable defined by an indexical (like []p p, or the others, p sigma_1 proposition). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'. Because you say we already have to previously define what the same present moment they meet in is (means) and do that independently of this coordinate time calculation. You first must define, rather than calculate, what a same point in spacetime means by the reflected light method which is fine for establishing two twins are at the same point in spacetime WHEN they are at the same place in space but not otherwise. You say that (using coordinate time calculations) For the twins, if you know the coordinates they departed Earth and their coordinate speeds when they departed, and you know the coordinates of any subsequent accelerations (or forces causing those accelerations), you can predict the different coordinates where they will reunite, and what proper time their clocks will show then. But that's exactly what the standard equations of relativity give you isn't it? Assuming that by the proper time their clocks will show then (when they meet) is just the t values their clocks read. So I fail to see what we get out of this approach that standard relativity calculations don't give us. What do you mean by standard relativity calculations? The standard calculations *are* done using some coordinate system, I don't know of any way to make predictions about future behavior given some initial conditions without making use of a coordinate system. All the equations of relativity you'll find in an introductory textbook, like the time dilation equation, will only apply in inertial coordinate systems for example (though more advanced textbooks will provide different equations that can be used in non-inertial coordinate systems). If you think there is some way in relativity to make such predictions without using any coordinate systems at all, please elaborate. Don't they give us the exact same results of two different times in a same point in spacetime that we've already defined independently of the calculations? If so I repeat my assertion that there is no calculation from coordinate time, or relativity in any form, that gives the twins having the exact same coordinate time reading on some cryptic clock that proves they are the same time as well as the same place when they meet. And...what is this assertion based on, exactly? Even if you think there is some other way of calculating what ages the twins will be when they meet that doesn't make use of coordinate systems, this doesn't in any way imply that the calculation involving coordinate systems gives the wrong answer, or doesn't give an answer at all, to the question of what coordinate clock will be at the same point in spacetime as the meeting of the twins, or what the reading of that coordinate clock will be. Are you in fact arguing that a calculation involving an inertial coordinate system will not give the correct numerical answer to this question? If so, on what basis? So again I repeat my assertion that the present moment is locally DEFINABLE (via reflected light) but NOT CALCULABLE by a coordinate time or any other approach. So it's the operational definition involving reflected light that you're concerned with? But of course if you know the initial coordinate positions and velocities of two observers approaching one another, and you know that one observer is continually sending out light signals to the other and measuring the reflections, then you can figure out the coordinate position and time that each signal is sent out, the coordinate position and time it gets reflected, and the coordinate position and time it returns to the sender, and the proper (clock) time interval he will experience between sending a given signal and receiving back the reflection of that signal. There should be no problem with showing that this proper time interval approaches 0 as you approach the coordinate position and time the two observers meet. And it would work just the same if you replaced one of the observers by any particular coordinate clock. That's what I've always said, but I thought you were telling me that same points in spacetime were CALCULABLE with coordinate time, that there was some mysterious coordinate time calculation that made the twins' clocks come out the same t readings when they met proving that the meeting was at the same point in spacetime. By same t readings when they met do you mean that their own clocks actually show the same proper time when they meet, or do you just mean that their proper times at the point in spacetime when they meet are each assigned the same t-coordinate in a coordinate system? I have obviously been talking about the latter--I repeatedly used the example where, if twin A is 30 and
Re: Block Universes
On 06 Feb 2014, at 00:17, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven. Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that... If you accept that you are faced with the intractable problem of explaining the source of that moving 1p viewpoint. It doesn't seem particularly intractable to me, although it is related to the hard question of how qualia comes about, so perhaps you are alluding to that. The moving 1p view point, or perhaps better the 1p moving-view point, is an affair of qualia and person, indeed. It will correspond to S4Grz(1) in arithmetic, or the Soul of the World in Plotinus. Bruno And notice that strictly block time says NOTHING moves, not even a 1p viewpoint, Block time doesn't mention 1p at all. The subjective is not part of its explanatory reach. Perhaps you are trying to attribute too much explanatory power to the notion of block time? If you hold that block time is all that there is, then you are basically eliminatavist in your approach. Julian Barbour is in that camp, but I think that most denizens of this list are not, except perhaps John Clark who dismisses it as pee-pee. that it's all a mysterious illusion of perspective that makes it seem like something moves when nothing actually does, though of course no one can explain why or how Edgar -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:31:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Edgar Well, yes. Of course it was in error because you massively overinflated what could reasonably be deduced from a single comment. That's not praise. Praise is measured. It's the measured part people feel praised about, because everyone knows measuring is hard, and suggests sincerity, whereas gushing is easy and normally has a self-serving motive. -- 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: Block Universes
On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:02, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:20:36PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: That is exactly why I say a BU can never describe consciousness. Is that specifically a BU, or any form of materialism? Materialism only really entails supervenience of consciousness on the physical world. I use the term physicalism to refer to the idea that physical theories are sufficient to explain / describe consciousness and eliminative materialism to describe the idea that conscious either does not exist, or is mere epiphenomena, with no causal role at all. Note that Bruno's MAT is actually physicalism, not materialism, I think that with MGA, we can say that it is both. In fact I not sure that even weak materialism makes sense in a non physicalist ontology. But can come back on this later. Bruno something which has caused me great confusion in the past. The problem was that the MGA is cloaked in the language of supervenience, which belong to materialism in general, not just physicalism. The BU is just a description, or a picture, of reality. It is not one of the 'isms of the philosophy of the mind. But if you were to take the BU as fundamental, then you would be adopting eliminative materialism. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the curvature of a standard hypersphere which I'm beginning to doubt) Omega is not a measure of curvature, it's a measure of density (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter ), and it assumes the standard FRLW model where the density is perfectly uniform at each moment of coordinate time. But in the FRLW model of a closed universe, I believe the radius of the hypersphere as a function of coordinate time can be calculated from Omega as a function of coordinate time. But next you are putting words in my mouth. I do NOT say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe. That's a basic misunderstanding of my model. I say quite the opposite, that there is a common universal present moment of p-time that all observers in the universe exist within, I understand that you say this, but to say there is an objective truth about p-time doesn't necessarily mean there is any empirical way to determine which pairs of events actually happened at the same p-time. because the present moment of p-time is the only locus of actual reality, and this is individually confirmed by direct observation by all observers. WHAT direct observations can determine whether two events at totally different locations in space happened at the same moment of p-time or different moments of p-time? If you think that this can be determined observationally, please give a detailed procedure that could be applied to, say, the question of whether two different bomb explosions at different distances from a black hole happened at the same p-time or different p-times. I also say that once that is established for each individual observer, then it is easy to demonstrate that that same present moment is common to all observers. I'm not just asking for a metaphysical demonstration that there must be such a common present moment, but a way to actually determine whether a pair of events at different locations actually shared the same absolute present moment at the time they happened. So there is no issue of determining which events are simultaneous in p-time because all events that are actually occurring occur only in the present moment of p-time. I'm not asking about events that are actually occurring, I'm asking *retrospectively*, if we have a record of two events that occurred in the past, is there any way to determine whether those two events shared the same p-time at the moment they happened. As for establishing the 'simultaneity' of past moments of p-time they don't really have a metric associated with them though you keep trying to tell me that coordinate time might provide one, but I don't see that yet. A metric is a way of relating coordinate times to proper times for timelike paths (and coordinate distances to proper lengths of spacelike paths), I don't see what it has to do with establishing simultaneity of past moments of p-time (I don't recall ever saying that coordinate time would provide a definition of p-time, if you think I did you must have misunderstood me). Forget technical ideas like metrics for the moment, please just tell me if you'd agree that for any pair of events that happened in the past, it must be either TRUE or FALSE that they shared the same p-time at the moment they happened--that there has to be an objective truth about this, regardless of whether we have any way to determine it empirically. Jesse -- 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: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Forget stops. OK, if they're still moving fast relative to each other then each will see the others clock running slow. Just assume A at the point just before he stops and is still decellerating at 1g TO stop. The situation is exactly the same except for a few nanoseconds. No it is not. If A is decelerating then there has been a change in A's acceleration, the direction has changed as much as it's possible for it to change, by 180 degrees. The situation is no longer symmetrical and so what they see is not symmetrical, A sees B's clock running fast but B sees A's clock running slow, they age at different rates too. Of course if A is only decelerating slightly then B's clock will only seem to be running slightly fast, but then again if he's only decelerating slightly it will take a long time (ship time) to come to a stop, so when he does finally come to a stop A will find the discrepancy between his clock and his twin brother's clock to be large. You've got the basic relativity wrong here. Then Einstein got it wrong too. 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:32, Pierz wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com question. People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in perfect detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain. Yes, it makes the neuro-mechanist assumption doubtful (perhaps), but that hypothesis is eliminated at step seven. Now, I am not sure that there is no place in brain for such big memories, somehow compressed, inclduing the glials, and who knows RNA or something. Nor am I sure of your literal account of hypermnesia. Hypermnesics have quite impressive memory faculties, but those which memories are immediate, are so much handicapped that they are hard to test, some have buffer problem, etc. As Christian says; it leads to a very confusing mental life, making their accounts also confusing. Bruno -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:50:50 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 4:31:18 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Edgar Well, yes. Of course it was in error because you massively overinflated what could reasonably be deduced from a single comment. That's not praise. Praise is measured. It's the measured part people feel praised about, because everyone knows measuring is hard, and suggests sincerity, whereas gushing is easy and normally has a self-serving motive.p p,s. like 3 days ago you massively went the other way and accused me of antipathy for trying to share about a way obviousness can bite back by sneaking too far into reasoning. p.p.s. don't worry I forgive you -- 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: Block Universes
So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@ googlegroups.com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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-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-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. -- 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
Re: Block Universes
Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@ googlegroups.com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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-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-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
Re: Block Universes
I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups. com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netwrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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-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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email
Re: Unput and Onput
On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot avoid some private transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic, with standard definition for transcendence. I think the standard definition is beyond normal experience, but I think you mean true but unprovable. But even if you take transcendent to mean ineffable I don't see how arithmetic is going to pick out the qualia of experience as ineffable. There are infinitely many true but unprovable propositions. Why are the qualia we experience the ones that they are and not some others? 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar I would guess that, like me, Quentin is asking how you would retroactively determine whether two events in the past happened at the same p-time (and because of the finite speed of light, whenever we learn of an event at a location different from our own, it is always an event in the past), and thus wouldn't be satisfied by the answer you gave me that there is no issue of determining which events are simultaneous in p-time because all events that are actually occurring occur only in the present moment of p-time, since this answer is of no help in giving a practical answer to that question for any specific pair of known events which happened at different locations. Jesse -- 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: Unput and Onput
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:22:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: Numbers can be derived from sensible physics That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their description of physics. Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like density or mass. That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious physicists are attracted to this, but they don't convince me). Can you explain why? Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion. It has nothing to do with physics. But physics can implement them, and that notion is not that obvious. How do you know it has nothing to do with physics? Certainly it seems more plausible to me that Turing universality supervenes on a common language of physical unity and unit-plurality than it does that the flavor of a tangerine supervenes on Turing universality. Just as Comp does a brute appropriation of qualia under 1p uncertainty, No. That would be a confusion between []p and []p p (or others). Only God can do that confusion. You seem to go back and forth between making qualia something transcendent and private, to making it somehow inevitable mathematically. Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot avoid some private transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic, with standard definition for transcendence. What's a standard definition for transcendence? How do you know that such a condition is not a 1 dimensional data transformation rather than an introspective aesthetic environment? If we ask ourselves, 'Does being a good mathematician require you to be a good artist or musician?', the answer I think is no. I am not sure. But good mathematician is vague. Good artist also. Just in simple, straightforward terms - does being able to multiply fractions require that you can paint a realistic face or does it seem to be a fundamentally different talent? If we ask 'Does being a good artist or musician require us to be a good mathematician?' the answer is also no. Why is the relation between math, physics, and science so obvious, Such relation are not obvious. That is why we discuss them. Indeed comp changes them radically. Comp would change them if it were correct. I am using the fact of their colloquial relation as support for Comp being misguided. but the relation between any of those and the arts is not so obvious? because to add numbers you need few bytes. To pain Mona Lisa, you nee much more bytes, and richer 1p experiences. It doesn't follow though that more math would equal 'unlike math' - at least not without a theory of why math would become unlike itself and what that would mean. physics can do a brute appropriation of arithmetic under material topology. Some material disposition can be shown to be Turing universal. But this is proved in showing how such system can implement a universal machine (quantum or not quantum one). Don't you just have to go to a level of description where the material appears granular. I don't really get the argument that all matter is computable but not all computation can be materialized. Comp implies that matter is not computable. materialization is an emergent phenomenon on coherence conditions on infinite sum of computations. Why wouldn't you still be able to materialize any infinite sum of computations? It would explain why Turing universality does not apply to gases It applies to gases. technically no usable, as it is hard to put all the gaz molecules Not talking about gas molecules, I'm talking about a volume of ideal gas. at the right position at the right time, but in principle, gases, in some volume, are Turing universal system. You would need to control that volume with non-gaseous containers and valves. Gas is still not Turing universal as an uncontained ideal gas. Computation requires formal, object-like units...because arithmetic is not really universal, it is only low level. and empty space. Hmm... Quantum vacuum is Turing universal. I think. I'm talking about an ideal vacuum though, not the vacuum that we imagine is full of particle-waves or probability juice. If I'm right about the sense primitive, energy exists only within matter, and not in space. For classical physics, you need at least three bodies. Computers require object-like properties to control and measure digitally. Yes. You often say, we
Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)
On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:39, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Which among the next symbolic expressions is the one being a well
formed formula:
((p - q) - ((p (p V r)) - q))
))(p-)##à89- a - q)
OK?
I sure hope so.
Well, I will pray a little bit.
(to be sure the irst one might contain a typo, but I assure you
there are no typo in the second one (and there is no cat walking on
the keyboard).
***
Then a set of worlds get alive when each proposition (p, q, r), in
each world get some truth value, t, or f. I will say that the
mutiverse is illuminated.
And we can decide to put f and t is the propositional symbol for the
boolean constant true and false.
(meaning that p - f is a proposition, or well formed formula).
In modal logic it is often simpler to use only the connector -
and that if possible if you have the constant f.
For example you can define ~p as an abbreviation for (p - f), as
you should see by doing a truth table. OK?
p - f is (~p V f), for which the truth table is indeed the same as ~p
OK.
(Can you define , V, with - and f in the same way? This is
not an exercise, just a question!).
I don't think I can define those *literally* with p, - and f if
that's what you mean.
That is what I mean, indeed.
But that doesn't make sense, because requires two arguments, so it
would have to be something like ... well, p - q is (~p V q) and
it's also ~(p ~q), which contain V and ... I'm not sure I know
what you mean.
Like for ~, to define and V to a machine which knows only -
and f. You can use the ~, as you have alredy see that you
can define it with - and f.
I reason aloud. Please tell me if you understand.
First we know that p - q is just ~p V q, OK?
So the V looks already close to -. Except that instead of ~p V
q (which is p - q) we want p V q.
May be we can substitute just p by ~p: and p V q might be then ~p - q,
Well, you can do the truth table of ~p - q, and see that it is the
same as p V q.
To finish it of course, we can eliminate the ~, and we have that p V
q is entirely defined by (p - f) - q.
OK?
And the :
Well, we already know a relationship between the and the V, OK?
The De Morgan relations.
So, applying the de Morgan relation, p q is the same as ~(~p V ~q),
(the same logically, not pragmatically, of course).
That solves the problem.
But we can verify, perhaps simplify. We can eliminate the V by the
definition above (A V B = ~A - B),
~(~p V ~q) becomes ~(~~p - ~q), that is ~(p - ~q). Or, to really
settle the things, and define from - and f:
p q = ((p - (q - f)) - f).
OK?
Each world, once illuminated (that is once each proposition letter
has a value f or t) inherits of the semantics of classical
proposition logic.
This means that if p and q are true in some world alpha, then (p
q) is true in that world alpha, etc.
in particular all tautologies, or propositional laws, is true in all
illuminated multiverse, and this for all illuminations (that for all
possible assignment of truth value to the world).
OK?
Question: If the multiverse is the set {a, b}, how many illuminated
multiverses can we get?
I suppose 4, since we have a world with 2 propositions, and each can
be t or f?
Answer: there is three letters p, q, r, leading to eight valuations
possible in a, and the same in b, making a total of 64 valuations,
if I am not too much distracted. I go quick. This is just to test if
you get the precise meanings.
Oh, OK. So a and b are worlds, not ... sorry. I see.
Good.
So that is 2^3 x 2^3 because a has p,q,r = 3 values, all t or f, as
does b. OK now I see what you meant.
OK.
Of course with the infinite alphabet {p, q, r, p1, q1, r1, p2, ... }
we already have a continuum of multiverses.
I can't quite see why it's a continuum. Each world has a countable
infinity of letters, and the number of worlds is therefore 2 ^
countable infinity! Is that a continuum?
Yes. We proved it, Liz.
Take a the infinite propositional symbol letters {p, q, r, p1, q1, r1,
p2, ... } . They are well ordered. So a sequence of 1 and 0 (other
common name for t and f) can be interpreted as being a valuation. The
valuation are the infinite sequences of 1 and 0. Or the function from
N to {0, 1}.
If such a set of function was in bijection with N, i - f_i, the
function g defined by g(n) = f_n(n) + 1 would be a function f_i, let
us sat f_k, and f_k, applied on k, would gives both f_k(k) + 1 and
f_k(k), and be well defined, making 0 = 1.
My transfinite maths may not be quite up to that one.
The infinite sequence of 0, and 1, if you put 0. at the front, you get
0.1101111011010000...
for all sequences of 0 and 1, that is you get the real numbers,
written in binary, belonging to the interval (0, 1].
That is the continuum. 2^aleph_0.
Well, that was Leibniz sort of multiverse, with
Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)
On 2/6/2014 12:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In Kripke semantic all statements are relativized to the world you are in. []A can be true in some world and false in another. The meaning of [] is restricted, for each world, to the world they can access (through the accessibility relation available in the Kripke multiverse). []A still keep a meaning, but only in each world. So everything is said when we define the new meaning of [] by the rule []A is true in alpha, by definition, means that A is true in all world beta *accessible* from alpha. And A is true in alpha iff there is a world beta; where A is true, accessible from alpha. Suppose A is true in alpha, but alpha is not accessible from alpha and A is not true in any other world accessible from alpha. Does it follow that A is not true in alpha? I don't see the point allowing that worlds may not be accesible from themselves? Does that have some application? 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: Block Universes
On 7 February 2014 05:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:30, LizR wrote: On 6 February 2014 00:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. But time symmetry still asks fro special boundary condition, and seems to me to still look like using ad hoc information to select one reality against others. I agree with Deutsch's idea that Cramer transactional theory is still a MWI, + initial conditions selecting a reality. Which special boundary conditions? The only ones in an EPR experiment are the emitter and measuring device settings. That will not be enough, I think. You need the state of the prepared particle (say), and the measuring device + the result you measure on the particle. Or worst, the end state of the physical universe. You can't select one reality among all, and keep the interference right for arbitrary measurement, without selecting the whole reversible unique history. I think that's why we use photons for EPR. They haven't enough internal state for those considerations to be relevant. For the experiment only a few factors are important, and carefully controlled. -- 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: Unput and Onput
On 7 February 2014 05:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: Numbers can be derived from sensible physics That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their description of physics. Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like density or mass. That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious physicists are attracted to this, but they don't convince me). Can you explain why? Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion. It has nothing to do with physics. I must admit I was quite surprised by this. I thought you generally argue that physics can be extracted from comp, and TU is part of comp (isn't it?) -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining the ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this regard, *officially decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully noting the swearing protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an overly ardent compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the plaintiffs overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and sections. Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of events on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry souls of plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this noble-bloat house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a single post into the eternity of P-time. Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized interpretations of Science because of the gravy gravity of this officialized, sealed, notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, spamificationationalizeducation of the rest of the dumb list for we all like the gravy bit, unless we are greenitarian, which remains solemnly, in the light of day, a dark matter of information-urination from black holes spun out of standards more than blocks of verses singing in unison of angry hawks and birds. All rejoice and thank the Edgar, as well and more the forgiver, foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future and on the left. Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:16:34 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration! :-) Best, Edgar what you were actually doing was making an opportunity to complain and put down everyone else, with yourself firmly in the frame of how to do things right. Which first of all is the opposite of praising the other person, because it's at their expense. I mean, come on, that's an insult if anything. -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even biosphere. No. Read again OK... It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004). That still seems to be saying what I just said. The dimensions in possibility space is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins you could make? -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On 7 February 2014 06:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 02:32, Pierz wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com questionhttp://www.quora.com/digest/track_click?hash=2e8ec7de05b636790212092c83f0936eaoid=pLlVYjWVKaaoty=2ty_data=4012999ty=1digest_id=241884556click_pos=1st=1391558946766537source=3stories=1_L4sR6imoEQB%7C1_aytbQbnb2zW%7C1_jA8otFvN9FH%7C1_4XH6bzBFPwr%7C1_4TMBUpDzRpy%7C1_8f6Kgdm4jXW%7C1_XDaAF5TDFVy%7C1_zsSejxTjfe6v=2aty=4. People with this gift/disability remember every moment of their lives in *perfect *detail. To me this raises real questions about the comp hypothesis and the 'yes doctor'. Consider the 'RAM' required for this type of recall. Memories are 3d and 'retina' resolution. If we consider that an hour of Blu-ray footage consumes about 30Gb, then some rough calculations show that Blu-ray quality footage of an entire life of 60 years would consume around 17,000 terabytes of storage. But these memories include tactile, olfactory and cognitive channels as well as visual and auditory information, and of course the resolution of the visual system is far better than Blu-ray. I'd take a rough guess and say that full recording of a person's mental experience in all external and internal channels would have to require hundreds or even thousands of times the bandwidth of Blu-ray. But even at what I'd think would be an extremely conservative estimate of a hundred times, we're up near two million terabytes (two exabytes). What's more, there appears to be no strain, no sign of running out of space at all, as if capacity was simply not an issue. This type of example makes me really question whether digital prosthetics are a real possibility at all - it looks to me strongly suggestive of a totally different way of recording information, or even of the possibility that recording and storage are the wrong metaphor entirely. 'Christian' in the above quora response says that he has little means of distinguishing a memory from a live experience, making for a very confusing mental life. This type of memory looks more like a kind of time travel than a recording. Perhaps this is still compatible with Bruno's version of comp - the universal subject inhabiting the pure space of Number - but it's more problematic for step one of the whole argument that leads to this vision, namely saying 'yes' to a digital brain. Yes, it makes the neuro-mechanist assumption doubtful (perhaps), but that hypothesis is eliminated at step seven. Now, I am not sure that there is no place in brain for such big memories, somehow compressed, inclduing the glials, and who knows RNA or something. Nor am I sure of your literal account of hypermnesia. Hypermnesics have quite impressive memory faculties, but those which memories are immediate, are so much handicapped that they are hard to test, some have buffer problem, etc. As Christian says; it leads to a very confusing mental life, making their accounts also confusing. Roughly speaking, you seem to be saying that having an eidetic memory leaves little space for anything else. So could that be used to estimate the total capacity of the brain? I'm guessing memories aren't stored in HD surroundsound, despite earlier comments. The input stream is a lot of data, but surely memories are highly compressed, even photographic ones? (Maybe not using MPEG...) -- 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: Block Universes
Quentin, For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same present moment. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:33:02 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups. com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netwrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
Hawking gets the attention because he has ALS. It's not a tradeoff many would want to make. -- 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: Block Universes
Jesse,
Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time
simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same
present moment of p-time.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:15:16 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way
you do.
Start with an empty space with no matter or energy.
[But this is impossible in my theory since the presence of matter/energy
is what creates space in my model so make that a space filled with a thin
homogeneous distribution of matter. This is irrelevant to the discussion,
just a note.]
This space will be flat, locally at least. [On cosmological scales it will
be curved but we can ignore that for now]
Now assume this is a 2D space to make things simpler.
Now drop an arbitrary orthogonal coordinate grid on this space.
Next place a clock and a light source at each grid intersection. The clock
and light source will be synchronized and the light source will emit a
pulse of light at every second the clock ticks.
Note that, in this flat homogeneous space with no acceleration or relative
motion, all grid clocks will tick in unison, and all light sources will
pulse in unison, across the entire surface. In this flat space there is
clearly a common universal present moment, and a simultaneous clock time
reading across the whole space.
You can add a common universal present moment in as an untestable
metaphysical assumption if you like, but that certainly isn't clear just
from the physical details of the scenario you're describing. The coordinate
grid just provides *a* definition of simultaneity, but there's no guarantee
it would agree with that of a metaphysical absolute present!
To see why, imagine you have two different coordinate grids in this flat
space, each moving at constant velocity relative to the other (you can
imagine the clocks and rulers are made of some ghostly material that allows
the clocks and rulers of one grid to pass right through the clocks and
rulers of the other without disturbing them). In that case, if clocks
within each grid are synchronized using the Einstein synchronization
convention, then the two grids will actually disagree about
simultaneity--if events A and B are assigned the same time coordinate by
local clocks of grid #1 that are at the same point in spacetime as A and B,
then they will be assigned *different* time coordinates by local clocks of
grid #2 that are at the same point in spacetime as A and B. Even if p-time
simultaneity exists then only one of the grid's definitions of simultaneity
could agree with it, and it could easily be that neither of them do.
A while ago I drew up some diagrams showing a pair of 1D ruler/clock
coordinate systems moving alongside each other, illustrating how in each
system's own frame their own clocks were synchronized, but the other
system's were out-of-sync:
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif
as well as a diagram showing that both frames agree about which events
locally coincide at the same point in spacetime:
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/MatchingClocks.gif
Now represent this flat 2D space by an elastic rubber sheet with the
coordinate grid drawn on it, and the clocks ticking and light sources
pulsing every second with the ticks.
As you noted, the time distance between any two points will be simply the
distance that light travels between them, the time it takes for light to
travel from one point to another on somebody's clock, which in this flat
universe will be the same for all clocks.
Now add a large mass to this model. This mass will not be a spherical ball
placed on the rubber sheet but the presence of a mass inside a grid cell(s)
of the sheet and the effect of that mass is to dilate the rubber sheet at
that point. That dilation will cause a bulge in the sheet around the mass,
a curvature in space.
In relativity those rubber sheet diagrams ('embedding diagrams' which
'embed' a curved 2D surface in our ordinary 3D space so we can visualize
the curvature) already presuppose you have made some (arbitrary,
clock-dependent) choice about how to define simultaneity, and then are
looking at the curvature of a 2D slice of space (a fixed value of one of
the spatial coordinates) within a particular simultaneity surface (a fixed
value of the time coordinate). Choose a different definition of
simultaneity and you get a different picture of curved space at any
instant.
Phenomena associated with gravity are more fundamentally understood in
terms of *spacetime* being curved, not space. In a spherically symmetric
spacetime the curvature only depends on the radial coordinate, so you can
draw a different sort of 2D
Re: A humble suggestion to the group
Thanks, Russell. It seems I may be a bit(?) obsolete as compared to your views. However: When I walked in to a 'good' hard-copy library I pulled out more than 'exact' notations and found lesser related hints tha lead me to new ideas (hence my patents). At a 'modern' company tons of metal-rolles were stored in the Rockys with data we sometimes wanted to recoop: there were no instruments available already to decipher them. Your 'spinning disk' may take care of that, I don't know it. Curating? one man's 'curation' may hide the interesting part from another man's search. I bounced into that when in the 50s I worked with the library-decimalization system and much was lost by faulty interpreting bu the coder. The 'audio' ref may be wrong, sorry. With #5 I wanted to point to our limited knowledge of whatever *may* come up. I am agnostic. Respectfully John M On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:23:45PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, thanks for the reply. My additional points: 1. You do not believe in technical progress (scanning SELECT hardcopy-parts would take seconds). Wrong. It still takes a long time - of the order of minutes per A4 page (5-10KB of data, now we have TBs of data to archive and restore), even with OCR and ECC technologies, which didn't really exist back in the 1980s. 2. You seem to think of 'storing' everything. Not every page is worth 'forever'. Think errors - Obsolescence. Quite true, but the cost of curating the data (particularly when the curating gets it wrong) typically outweighs the cost of storing the data and transferring the data to new digital formats when they arise by many orders of magnitude. BTW - I do curate my own data, mainly because too much cruft makes me inefficient, but I don't dare curate my wife's data. So I have to put up with the cruft whenever she asks me to find XXX. 3. Whatever you 'backup' today may get out-of-technique some time and lost again. Hence the spinning disk comment. Nothing else works in the long term. 4. (to point 1): audio - (based?) storing may apply some newer AI with topical comparison and REPLY - so that would contribute to #2 as well. What do you mean by audio storage? Literally, audio is ephemeral. To store it requires a storage medium, whether they be wax cylinders, or modern MP3 data files on flash media. 5-1000 think about alll the rest what we do not even think of today We have to think about it today, otherwise it is lost tomorrow. John Mikes On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:45:43PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell wrote Jan 26: .*.We must make sure we have backups this time!*. How about on paper? E.g. hard copies, like in a millennia-old * L I B R A R Y ? * *John Mikes* That's funny - I used to use paper backup copies in my early years of computing (think Z80 processor running CP/M with floppy disks), and even, on occasion, having to restore from them. I once loaded an APL interpreter from printed source code, which took a couple of weeks - particular to get it working! Restoring my laptop from a paper backup would now take several centuries, or require a sizable army of typists, even using OCR... not so useful. The only backup/archive that works is spinning disk - a backup that is copied to the current used media at all times. I'm in the process now of transferring my CD/DVDRom collection to spinning disk - only just in time I suspect. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime and same coordinate time really mean physically, that was what this whole tangent was about until you suddenly switched to explaining how things work in your own theories (and even then it seemed like the discussion of your own theories was meant to be confined to the comments in square quotes). You even started off the post that I was responding to with OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way you do--*my* coordinate spacetime model (i.e. the standard relativistic one as understood by physicists), not your own p-time model. Then after some extended discussion you said Does this model [ignoring my peripheral comments in square quotes] express what you mean by coordinate time? Perhaps you could address just the last paragraph of my post, which was specifically about whether you were still maintaining there was some inherent (non-metaphysical) incoherence in my model: 'You seem to be just giving a lecture about how things work in your own metaphysical view, rather than trying to understand how a physicist using relativity can coherently talk about the two twins having different ages at the same time or at the same point in spacetime, which I thought was the original point of your post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/I29-svr5V70Jwhere you said How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this same point with different clock times starting from when the one twin leaves on his journey? Is there any choice of frames which computes this result in relativity theory? If so what? If not then we must assume a separate kind of time in which it is true. That is p-time. Leaving aside your metaphysics for the moment, do you actually think there is anything internally incoherent the description I've given about what it means to say the twins' two different clock readings can happen at the same coordinate time (using local readings on coordinate clocks of the type I described), or can coincide at the same point in spacetime (using the operational definition I gave earlier)? Are you satisfied that relativity theory can give a coherent operational account of the meaning of these phrases even if you find the account unsatisfying metaphysically? If so, then it's obviously not true that we must assume p-time to explain things like the twin experiment, even if you might *prefer* to explain it by making use of such an assumption. If you're not satisfied with my operational account, please give a critique which focuses only on the flaws or undefined elements you see in that account, without making any reference to your own alternate account involving p-time and clocks running at c and so forth.' Jesse -- 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: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
Perhaps, but also true that most ALS sufferers do not get such attention media adulation. On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Hawking gets the attention because he has ALS. It's not a tradeoff many would want to make. -- 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: Block Universes
Jesse, You are misunderstanding most of my points here! By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your coordinate time analysis just comes up with the exact same clock time differences using a different coordinate system. Is that not so? I don't see any way around that no matter what coordinate system you use because there is a single correct answer both twins agree upon and confirm by looking at each other's watches in their common present moment. Of course you need some coordinate system to do relativity calculations. I never claimed you didn't. It wasn't I that said a coordinate time analysis wouldn't give the correct answer. I said it doesn't give any calculation of what the present moment IS in which its calculated results occur which they must have to to make sense. I thought you said, contrary to my thinking, that coordinate spacetime would do that but I don't see it doing it and you agreed that is an independent definition, so I don't see the sense of your diversion into coordinate time since it gives the same answer for the twins that any relativistic analysis does, and it does not calculate a present moment because no relativistic approach does that I'm aware of. Re your last paragraph: First what do YOU mean by proper time? Do you simply mean their clock times on their clocks or some other time? And you say in the last paragraph then the event of twin A turning 30 is assigned the same t-coordinate as the event of twin B turning 40. Who does this assigning? And what time is the then in which the assigning takes place? Is this just some arbitrary assignment after the meeting, in the same sense that you said that the same point in spacetime had to be independently defined? What is the same t-coordinate in which A turns 30 and B turns 40? What's the value of that t-coordinate that is not the same as the different clock times? And what type of time coordinate is it? Clock time, coordinate time, proper time? And finally you say for example both events might be assigned a time of t=50 in some coordinate system. That just seems you are saying that it's possible for the twins to reset and synchronize their clocks after they meet which is obvious. But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the other. That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real absolute time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but relativity CANNOT explain why that time and age difference exists in the same present moment the twins share. So again I don't see the coordinate time approach adding anything to the discussion. It still, correct me if I'm wrong, does NOT calculate the fact that the twins meet up with different clock times in a SAME present moment.. Only the assumption of a separate p-time in my theory explains how that happens. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:34:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'. Because you say we already have to previously define what the same present moment they meet in is (means) and do that independently of this coordinate time calculation. You first must define, rather than calculate, what a same point in spacetime means by the reflected light method which is fine for establishing two twins are at the same point in spacetime WHEN they are at the same place in space but not otherwise. You say that (using coordinate time calculations) For the twins, if you know the coordinates they departed Earth and their coordinate speeds when they departed, and you know the coordinates of any subsequent accelerations (or forces causing those accelerations), you can predict the different coordinates where they will reunite, and what proper time their clocks will show then. But that's exactly what the standard equations of relativity give you isn't it? Assuming that by the proper time their clocks will show then (when they meet) is just the t values their clocks read. So I fail to see what we get out of this approach that standard relativity calculations don't give us. What do you mean by standard relativity calculations? The standard calculations *are* done using some coordinate system, I don't know of any way to make predictions about future behavior given some initial conditions without making use of a coordinate system. All the equations of relativity you'll find in an introductory textbook, like the time dilation equation, will only apply in inertial coordinate systems for example (though more advanced textbooks will
Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
Mitra's theory seems to contradict Penrose's proof that any GR solution with a closed event horizon must contain a singularity. Before Penrose's theorem there was a widespread opinion among physicists that something like Mitra's picture must be true and that the singularities in solutions like Schwarzschild's were just due to the idealized perfect spherical symmetry or the idealized equations of state. But Penrose bypassed all that and made a purely topological argument. So Hawking isn't saying that Mitra is right, Hawking is rejecting Penrose's theorem on the grounds that it doesn't consider quantum effects. Brent On 2/6/2014 12:45 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Giving credit where credit is due. http://twocircles.net/2014feb05/indian_physicist_resolved_black_hole_paradox_much_hawking.html Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking By K.S.Jayaraman, IANS, Bangalore : A new paper released late last month in which famed British physicist Stephen Hawking contradicts his own theory and says that Black Holes - in the real sense - do not actually exist has startled the world science community. But Abhas Mitra, a theoretical physicist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, is not at all surprised. I said more than a decade ago that the Black Hole solutions found in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity actually correspond to zero mass and are never formed. This implies that the so-called Black Holes candidates must be Grey Holes or quasi-Black Holes, Mitra told IANS. Hawking is saying the same thing now. Mitra's papers, published in peer reviewed journals since 2000 - that still remain unchallenged - maintain that there can be objects in the universe that are quasi-static or eternally collapsing but not exactly Black Holes. This work was largely ignored by mainstream physicists as well as the media while Hawking's recent two-page online paper saying exactly the same thing has become hot international news, Mitra noted. He said this happened even though several American astrophysicists verified his prediction that such quasi-Black Holes must have strong magnetic fields unlike the real Black Holes, adding that even Harvard University issued a press release to this effect in 2006. A Black Hole, according to its proponents, results from gravitational collapse of a massive star after it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion. A Black Hole is all vacuum except for an infinitely dense central point called singularity, Mitra said. As the theory goes, a Black Hole is surrounded by an imaginary boundary called Event Horizon that shuts everything within, allowing nothing - not even light - to escape. An object crossing the Event Horizon gets forever trapped and crushed at the singularity, destroying all the information about the object as well. This directly conflicts with the laws of quantum physics that say information can never be completely wiped out. This is the Black Hole information loss paradox. The Black Holes also pose a Firewall Paradox which arises from the claim that Event Horizon, under the quantum theory, must actually be transformed into a highly energetic region, or firewall, that would burn any approaching object to a crisp. Although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Mitra said. Hawking's latest paper attempts to resolve the Firewall Paradox by proposing that gravitational collapse produces only an Apparent Horizon but not an Event Horizon that is the hallmark of a true Black Hole. He said the absence of Event Horizons means there are no Black Holes in the sense they are usually visualized. Mitra said he has shown before that there can be no Event Horizon by using the classical theory without invoking uncertain quantum physics as Hawking has done. In fact, in a series of peer reviewed papers, Mitra has shown that no true Black Holes can ever form. The so-called Black Holes observed by astronomers are actually radiation pressure supported Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs). These balls of fire are so hot that even neutrons and protons melt there and whose outward radiation pressure balances the inward pull of gravity to arrest a catastrophic collapse before any Black Hole or 'singularity' would actually form. Incidentally, our Sun is also a ball of fire hot enough to melt atoms, Mitra noted. Thus, the realization that there can be no true Black Holes and the so-called Black Holes are actually ECOs resolve both the Information and Firewall paradoxes, Mitra said. Hawking has now arrived at the same conclusion from tentative arguments while our results are based on exact calculations and were published in a series of peer-reviewed papers over 13 years ago, Mitra added. -- 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
Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
On 7 February 2014 11:17, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Perhaps, but also true that most ALS sufferers do not get such attention media adulation. Perhaps because they aren't world famous scientists? I'm not sure what you expect here! I appreciate Mitra feeling bitter about this, but at least it should get his result more public awareness. I do find it very interesting, more so than any squabbling about who was first. Looks like Mitra has done a far better job anyway so that's what I'm really interested in. (Maybe now there will be an article for dummies like me in scientific american...) Also tbh I haven't really thought Hawking was doing much actual science for a long time, as an interested lay-person at least, despite him being called in on the odd well-publicised bet ... (plus his imaginary time idea seems to have dropped off the radar). He's good for the odd quote about the mind of God and fire in the equations... -- 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: Block Universes
On 7 February 2014 11:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the other. That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real absolute time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but relativity CANNOT explain why that time and age difference exists in the same present moment the twins share. So far it's been explained by me, Brent and Jesse, not to mention Albert Einstein and countless popularisers of relativity theory (apologes to anyone else on this list who has also explained it that I've forgotten). To re-re-rehash it briefly, the difference in ages is explained by the different paths through space-time taken by the twins before they meet again at a particular point in space-time. -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:32:51 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote: The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a reality. ... Huh, are you sure? I remember always hearing that it was a myth. I didn't find anything which settles it conclusively in a brief search, but http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Eidetic_imagery is worth a look. As usual, the reality is more nuanced than popular notions suggest. -Gabe -- 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: Block Universes
Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing... Yes, I'd like to understand your take on whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime really mean physically. I think I understand that from your reflected light test. But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the fact with the reflected light test. But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to calculate or explain. What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) and then says well at least we can define it locally with a reflected light test. But that is not sufficient to explain why. Only my p-time theory seems to be able to do that Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:06:55 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime and same coordinate time really mean physically, that was what this whole tangent was about until you suddenly switched to explaining how things work in your own theories (and even then it seemed like the discussion of your own theories was meant to be confined to the comments in square quotes). You even started off the post that I was responding to with OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way you do--*my* coordinate spacetime model (i.e. the standard relativistic one as understood by physicists), not your own p-time model. Then after some extended discussion you said Does this model [ignoring my peripheral comments in square quotes] express what you mean by coordinate time? Perhaps you could address just the last paragraph of my post, which was specifically about whether you were still maintaining there was some inherent (non-metaphysical) incoherence in my model: 'You seem to be just giving a lecture about how things work in your own metaphysical view, rather than trying to understand how a physicist using relativity can coherently talk about the two twins having different ages at the same time or at the same point in spacetime, which I thought was the original point of your post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/I29-svr5V70Jwhere you said How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this same point with different clock times starting from when the one twin leaves on his journey? Is there any choice of frames which computes this result in relativity theory? If so what? If not then we must assume a separate kind of time in which it is true. That is p-time. Leaving aside your metaphysics for the moment, do you actually think there is anything internally incoherent the description I've given about what it means to say the twins' two different clock readings can happen at the same coordinate time (using local readings on coordinate clocks of the type I described), or can coincide at the same point in spacetime (using the operational definition I gave earlier)? Are you satisfied that relativity theory can give a coherent operational account of the meaning of these phrases even if you find the account unsatisfying metaphysically? If so, then it's obviously not true that we must assume p-time to explain things like the twin experiment, even if you might *prefer* to explain it by making use of such an assumption. If you're not satisfied with my operational account, please give a critique which focuses only on the flaws or undefined elements you see in that account, without making any reference to your own alternate account involving p-time and clocks running at c and so forth.' Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
Liz, Liz, Liz, Of course the time/age difference can be explained but NOT the fact that it occurs in the SAME present moment, a moment distinct and different from clock time. You still don't grasp the basic issue here Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:41:36 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 7 February 2014 11:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the other. That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real absolute time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but relativity CANNOT explain why that time and age difference exists in the same present moment the twins share. So far it's been explained by me, Brent and Jesse, not to mention Albert Einstein and countless popularisers of relativity theory (apologes to anyone else on this list who has also explained it that I've forgotten). To re-re-rehash it briefly, the difference in ages is explained by the different paths through space-time taken by the twins before they meet again at a particular point in space-time. -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
A most excellent post, PGC! On 7 February 2014 10:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining the ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this regard, *officially decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully noting the swearing protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an overly ardent compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the plaintiffs overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and sections. Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of events on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry souls of plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this noble-bloat house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a single post into the eternity of P-time. Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized interpretations of Science because of the gravy gravity of this officialized, sealed, notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, spamificationationalizeducation of the rest of the dumb list for we all like the gravy bit, unless we are greenitarian, which remains solemnly, in the light of day, a dark matter of information-urination from black holes spun out of standards more than blocks of verses singing in unison of angry hawks and birds. All rejoice and thank the Edgar, as well and more the forgiver, foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future and on the left. Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC -- 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: Block Universes
Jesse, OK, here's another question to get to the crux. You claim the twins meet in the same point of spacetime. OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What is the value of that t-coordinate? And what's the relation of that t-coordinate to the different clock time t-coordinates of the twins? What's the transform that converts the two different clock time t values to the SAME same point t value? I say there isn't any, that relativity can't supply one. And that this means that, while relativity can arbitrarily DEFINE a same moment in spacetime as you do, it can NOT explain or calculate it. Only my p-time theory does this, relativity doesn't Response? Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:06:55 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime and same coordinate time really mean physically, that was what this whole tangent was about until you suddenly switched to explaining how things work in your own theories (and even then it seemed like the discussion of your own theories was meant to be confined to the comments in square quotes). You even started off the post that I was responding to with OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way you do--*my* coordinate spacetime model (i.e. the standard relativistic one as understood by physicists), not your own p-time model. Then after some extended discussion you said Does this model [ignoring my peripheral comments in square quotes] express what you mean by coordinate time? Perhaps you could address just the last paragraph of my post, which was specifically about whether you were still maintaining there was some inherent (non-metaphysical) incoherence in my model: 'You seem to be just giving a lecture about how things work in your own metaphysical view, rather than trying to understand how a physicist using relativity can coherently talk about the two twins having different ages at the same time or at the same point in spacetime, which I thought was the original point of your post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/I29-svr5V70Jwhere you said How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this same point with different clock times starting from when the one twin leaves on his journey? Is there any choice of frames which computes this result in relativity theory? If so what? If not then we must assume a separate kind of time in which it is true. That is p-time. Leaving aside your metaphysics for the moment, do you actually think there is anything internally incoherent the description I've given about what it means to say the twins' two different clock readings can happen at the same coordinate time (using local readings on coordinate clocks of the type I described), or can coincide at the same point in spacetime (using the operational definition I gave earlier)? Are you satisfied that relativity theory can give a coherent operational account of the meaning of these phrases even if you find the account unsatisfying metaphysically? If so, then it's obviously not true that we must assume p-time to explain things like the twin experiment, even if you might *prefer* to explain it by making use of such an assumption. If you're not satisfied with my operational account, please give a critique which focuses only on the flaws or undefined elements you see in that account, without making any reference to your own alternate account involving p-time and clocks running at c and so forth.' Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You are misunderstanding most of my points here! By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your coordinate time analysis just comes up with the exact same clock time differences using a different coordinate system. Is that not so? Different than what, exactly? Did I mention any other coordinate system? Of course you need some coordinate system to do relativity calculations. I never claimed you didn't. You said I fail to see what we get out of this approach that standard relativity calculations don't give us, where this approach referred to my coordinate-based analysis. So that suggested you were drawing a contrast between this approach and some distinct standard relativity calculations. What did you mean by that latter phrase? It wasn't I that said a coordinate time analysis wouldn't give the correct answer. I said it doesn't give any calculation of what the present moment IS in which its calculated results occur which they must have to to make sense. By what the present moment IS do you mean your own p-time, as opposed to just clock time simultaneity? If so, I simply don't see why you must have such a p-time in order for these results to make sense, the notions of same point in spacetime and coordinate time which I have been making use of seem perfectly adequate to me. I thought you were trying to make an *argument* as to why they are inadequate on their own, one that goes beyond it's too counterintuitive or it doesn't match our qualitative conscious experience of time. If you have such an argument, please present it, making no reference to conscious experience or intuitions! I thought you said, contrary to my thinking, that coordinate spacetime would do that Do what? Establish an absolute definition of present? If so, of course not, I never suggested such a thing...if something you mean something else by do that, please elaborate. but I don't see it doing it and you agreed that is an independent definition, so I don't see the sense of your diversion into coordinate time Because you kept asking me questions about it! Re your last paragraph: First what do YOU mean by proper time? Do you simply mean their clock times on their clocks or some other time? Yes, that's what proper time means in relativity, the proper time for any observer (or other objects) is just the time that they would measure on a clock carried with them. Usually physicists talk about the proper time interval between a pair of events on a given object's worldline, to avoid ambiguity about when the clock was set to read 0. And you say in the last paragraph then the event of twin A turning 30 is assigned the same t-coordinate as the event of twin B turning 40. Who does this assigning? And what time is the then in which the assigning takes place? The coordinate system I have been discussing. Is this just some arbitrary assignment after the meeting, No, it's the reading on the coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the meeting. in the same sense that you said that the same point in spacetime had to be independently defined? What is the same t-coordinate in which A turns 30 and B turns 40? What's the value of that t-coordinate that is not the same as the different clock times? Again, the coordinate clock. I already explained this in detail several times, this was the point of my introduction of the third clock besides the clocks of the two twins, the coordinate clock which I labeled clock C that I discussed in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/m91rxoG5LvkJand https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/JJKlMk7vDNYJ And what type of time coordinate is it? Clock time, coordinate time, proper time? The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the event. And of course all clock times are also proper times for the clocks themselves. And finally you say for example both events might be assigned a time of t=50 in some coordinate system. That just seems you are saying that it's possible for the twins to reset and synchronize their clocks after they meet which is obvious. No, t=50 is the time on the coordinate clock. The twins don't do anything to their clocks. But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the other. That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real absolute time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but relativity CANNOT explain why that time and age difference exists in the same present moment the twins share. I don't know what counts as an explanation for you--presumably any explanation that didn't make use of p-time would *by
Re: Real science versus interpretations of science
Liz and Cowboy, Yes, I guess so if your idea of science is discussing your favorite science fiction movies! :-) Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:52:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: A most excellent post, PGC! On 7 February 2014 10:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multipl...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations. Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining the ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this regard, *officially decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully noting the swearing protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an overly ardent compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the plaintiffs overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and sections. Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of events on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry souls of plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this noble-bloat house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a single post into the eternity of P-time. Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized interpretations of Science because of the gravy gravity of this officialized, sealed, notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, spamificationationalizeducation of the rest of the dumb list for we all like the gravy bit, unless we are greenitarian, which remains solemnly, in the light of day, a dark matter of information-urination from black holes spun out of standards more than blocks of verses singing in unison of angry hawks and birds. All rejoice and thank the Edgar, as well and more the forgiver, foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future and on the left. Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. And now when I explain that I was just responding to your questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to some questions of yours, that's all. I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing... Yes, I'd like to understand your take on whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime really mean physically. I think I understand that from your reflected light test. But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the fact with the reflected light test. Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to calculate or explain. What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) Can you give an operational definition of this shared present moment, one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're talking about light signals or just about one twin saying hey! and observing the other to immediately begin turning around)? Or is the existence of this shared present moment only verifiable in terms of conscious experience or metaphysical intuitions or something? Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
Jesse, OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your post is you say The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the event. This clock, call it C, on the grid that was at the same point in spacetime as the meeting event (which takes place on earth) is also a clock on earth, at earth's location on the grid. Twin B's clock also stayed at that exact same x,y,z point on the coordinate grid during the trip, and there was no relative motion between B and C. So why does B's clock read 40 years and clock C, which you claim gives the t-value of the meeting event, read 50 years when they were both at the same location during the trip? Aren't you mistaken here since clocks B and C are comoving throughout the duration of the trip and thus must remain synchronized? If that is true you seem to be saying that we must preferentially take the stay at home twin's clock time as the correct t-value of the same point in spacetime that the meeting occurs, the clock time of the observer that didn't move from the start to end point. Is that correct? If so, again it's just a definition, and a strange one at that, because no matter if the traveling twin resets his clock to that t-value you claim is the correct/natural? t value of the meeting event, his age still remains just 30. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:12:10 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, You are misunderstanding most of my points here! By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that your coordinate time analysis just comes up with the exact same clock time differences using a different coordinate system. Is that not so? Different than what, exactly? Did I mention any other coordinate system? Of course you need some coordinate system to do relativity calculations. I never claimed you didn't. You said I fail to see what we get out of this approach that standard relativity calculations don't give us, where this approach referred to my coordinate-based analysis. So that suggested you were drawing a contrast between this approach and some distinct standard relativity calculations. What did you mean by that latter phrase? It wasn't I that said a coordinate time analysis wouldn't give the correct answer. I said it doesn't give any calculation of what the present moment IS in which its calculated results occur which they must have to to make sense. By what the present moment IS do you mean your own p-time, as opposed to just clock time simultaneity? If so, I simply don't see why you must have such a p-time in order for these results to make sense, the notions of same point in spacetime and coordinate time which I have been making use of seem perfectly adequate to me. I thought you were trying to make an *argument* as to why they are inadequate on their own, one that goes beyond it's too counterintuitive or it doesn't match our qualitative conscious experience of time. If you have such an argument, please present it, making no reference to conscious experience or intuitions! I thought you said, contrary to my thinking, that coordinate spacetime would do that Do what? Establish an absolute definition of present? If so, of course not, I never suggested such a thing...if something you mean something else by do that, please elaborate. but I don't see it doing it and you agreed that is an independent definition, so I don't see the sense of your diversion into coordinate time Because you kept asking me questions about it! Re your last paragraph: First what do YOU mean by proper time? Do you simply mean their clock times on their clocks or some other time? Yes, that's what proper time means in relativity, the proper time for any observer (or other objects) is just the time that they would measure on a clock carried with them. Usually physicists talk about the proper time interval between a pair of events on a given object's worldline, to avoid ambiguity about when the clock was set to read 0. And you say in the last paragraph then the event of twin A turning 30 is assigned the same t-coordinate as the event of twin B turning 40. Who does this assigning? And what time is the then in which the assigning takes place? The coordinate system I have been discussing. Is this just some arbitrary assignment after the meeting, No, it's the reading on the coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the meeting. in the same sense that you said that the same point in spacetime had to be independently defined? What is the same t-coordinate in which A turns 30 and B turns 40? What's the
Re: Block Universes
2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Jesse,
Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time
simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same
present moment of p-time.
Once again, for the nth time, there is absolutely no need of p-time for
that. It's so obvious, are you blind not to see... (no, no that's not some
blatant obvious plagiarism)
Quentin
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:15:16 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same
way you do.
Start with an empty space with no matter or energy.
[But this is impossible in my theory since the presence of matter/energy
is what creates space in my model so make that a space filled with a thin
homogeneous distribution of matter. This is irrelevant to the discussion,
just a note.]
This space will be flat, locally at least. [On cosmological scales it
will be curved but we can ignore that for now]
Now assume this is a 2D space to make things simpler.
Now drop an arbitrary orthogonal coordinate grid on this space.
Next place a clock and a light source at each grid intersection. The
clock and light source will be synchronized and the light source will emit
a pulse of light at every second the clock ticks.
Note that, in this flat homogeneous space with no acceleration or
relative motion, all grid clocks will tick in unison, and all light sources
will pulse in unison, across the entire surface. In this flat space there
is clearly a common universal present moment, and a simultaneous clock time
reading across the whole space.
You can add a common universal present moment in as an untestable
metaphysical assumption if you like, but that certainly isn't clear just
from the physical details of the scenario you're describing. The coordinate
grid just provides *a* definition of simultaneity, but there's no guarantee
it would agree with that of a metaphysical absolute present!
To see why, imagine you have two different coordinate grids in this flat
space, each moving at constant velocity relative to the other (you can
imagine the clocks and rulers are made of some ghostly material that allows
the clocks and rulers of one grid to pass right through the clocks and
rulers of the other without disturbing them). In that case, if clocks
within each grid are synchronized using the Einstein synchronization
convention, then the two grids will actually disagree about
simultaneity--if events A and B are assigned the same time coordinate by
local clocks of grid #1 that are at the same point in spacetime as A and B,
then they will be assigned *different* time coordinates by local clocks of
grid #2 that are at the same point in spacetime as A and B. Even if p-time
simultaneity exists then only one of the grid's definitions of simultaneity
could agree with it, and it could easily be that neither of them do.
A while ago I drew up some diagrams showing a pair of 1D ruler/clock
coordinate systems moving alongside each other, illustrating how in each
system's own frame their own clocks were synchronized, but the other
system's were out-of-sync:
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif
as well as a diagram showing that both frames agree about which events
locally coincide at the same point in spacetime:
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/MatchingClocks.gif
Now represent this flat 2D space by an elastic rubber sheet with the
coordinate grid drawn on it, and the clocks ticking and light sources
pulsing every second with the ticks.
As you noted, the time distance between any two points will be simply the
distance that light travels between them, the time it takes for light to
travel from one point to another on somebody's clock, which in this flat
universe will be the same for all clocks.
Now add a large mass to this model. This mass will not be a spherical
ball placed on the rubber sheet but the presence of a mass inside a grid
cell(s) of the sheet and the effect of that mass is to dilate the rubber
sheet at that point. That dilation will cause a bulge in the sheet around
the mass, a curvature in space.
In relativity those rubber sheet diagrams ('embedding diagrams' which
'embed' a curved 2D surface in our ordinary 3D space so we can visualize
the curvature) already presuppose you have made some (arbitrary,
clock-dependent) choice about how to define simultaneity, and then are
looking at the curvature of a 2D slice of space (a fixed value of one of
the spatial coordinates) within a particular simultaneity surface (a fixed
value of the time coordinate). Choose a different definition of
simultaneity and you get a different picture of curved space at any
instant.
Phenomena associated with gravity are more fundamentally understood in
terms of
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, What's wrong with conscious experience? Every observation of science is ultimately a conscious experience. The observation of a present moment we share when we are together in space is the most FUNDAMENTAL observation of all. It's much much more than an intuition. It's a directly observable FACT. As for operational definition, I explained in detail how the theory works on numerous occasions. In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for doing that too much! Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:28:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. And now when I explain that I was just responding to your questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to some questions of yours, that's all. I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing... Yes, I'd like to understand your take on whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime really mean physically. I think I understand that from your reflected light test. But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the fact with the reflected light test. Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to calculate or explain. What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) Can you give an operational definition of this shared present moment, one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're talking about light signals or just about one twin saying hey! and observing the other to immediately begin turning around)? Or is the existence of this shared present moment only verifiable in terms of conscious experience or metaphysical intuitions or something? Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net: Quentin, For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same present moment. It doesn't solve anything, because it's not a problem for relativity... I agree that solving a non-existent problem is easy but useless. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:33:02 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups. com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netwrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse 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-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
Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net Mitra's theory seems to contradict Penrose's proof that any GR solution with a closed event horizon must contain a singularity. Before Penrose's theorem there was a widespread opinion among physicists that something like Mitra's picture must be true and that the singularities in solutions like Schwarzschild's were just due to the idealized perfect spherical symmetry or the idealized equations of state. But Penrose bypassed all that and made a purely topological argument. So Hawking isn't saying that Mitra is right, Hawking is rejecting Penrose's theorem on the grounds that it doesn't consider quantum effects. Thanks for the clarification about the subtle distinction between the reasoning in Hawking's recent short paper and Mitra's earlier theory. Brent On 2/6/2014 12:45 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: Giving credit where credit is due. http://twocircles.net/2014feb05/indian_physicist_resolved_black_hole_paradox_much_hawking.html Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking By K.S.Jayaraman, IANS, Bangalore : A new paper released late last month in which famed British physicist Stephen Hawking contradicts his own theory and says that Black Holes - in the real sense - do not actually exist has startled the world science community. But Abhas Mitra, a theoretical physicist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, is not at all surprised. I said more than a decade ago that the Black Hole solutions found in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity actually correspond to zero mass and are never formed. This implies that the so-called Black Holes candidates must be Grey Holes or quasi-Black Holes, Mitra told IANS. Hawking is saying the same thing now. Mitra's papers, published in peer reviewed journals since 2000 - that still remain unchallenged - maintain that there can be objects in the universe that are quasi-static or eternally collapsing but not exactly Black Holes. This work was largely ignored by mainstream physicists as well as the media while Hawking's recent two-page online paper saying exactly the same thing has become hot international news, Mitra noted. He said this happened even though several American astrophysicists verified his prediction that such quasi-Black Holes must have strong magnetic fields unlike the real Black Holes, adding that even Harvard University issued a press release to this effect in 2006. A Black Hole, according to its proponents, results from gravitational collapse of a massive star after it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion. A Black Hole is all vacuum except for an infinitely dense central point called singularity, Mitra said. As the theory goes, a Black Hole is surrounded by an imaginary boundary called Event Horizon that shuts everything within, allowing nothing - not even light - to escape. An object crossing the Event Horizon gets forever trapped and crushed at the singularity, destroying all the information about the object as well. This directly conflicts with the laws of quantum physics that say information can never be completely wiped out. This is the Black Hole information loss paradox. The Black Holes also pose a Firewall Paradox which arises from the claim that Event Horizon, under the quantum theory, must actually be transformed into a highly energetic region, or firewall, that would burn any approaching object to a crisp. Although the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Mitra said. Hawking's latest paper attempts to resolve the Firewall Paradox by proposing that gravitational collapse produces only an Apparent Horizon but not an Event Horizon that is the hallmark of a true Black Hole. He said the absence of Event Horizons means there are no Black Holes in the sense they are usually visualized. Mitra said he has shown before that there can be no Event Horizon by using the classical theory without invoking uncertain quantum physics as Hawking has done. In fact, in a series of peer reviewed papers, Mitra has shown that no true Black Holes can ever form. The so-called Black Holes observed by astronomers are actually radiation pressure supported Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs). These balls of fire are so hot that even neutrons and protons melt there and whose outward radiation pressure balances the inward pull of gravity to arrest a catastrophic collapse before any Black Hole or 'singularity' would actually form. Incidentally, our Sun is also a ball of fire hot enough to melt atoms, Mitra noted. Thus, the realization that there can be no true Black Holes and the so-called Black Holes are actually ECOs resolve both the Information and Firewall paradoxes, Mitra said. Hawking has now arrived at the same conclusion from tentative arguments while our results are based on exact calculations and were published
Re: Block Universes
Quentin, It IS a problem for reality and for relativity, because it exposes a hidden assumption of relativity without which relativity doesn't make sense, that there must be a common present moment in which relativistic results occur for those results to make sense and be meaningful, for the comparison of different t values to occur. But it's clear from your comments you are here to flame rather than to understand... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:56 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:: Quentin, For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same present moment. It doesn't solve anything, because it's not a problem for relativity... I agree that solving a non-existent problem is easy but useless. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:33:02 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups. com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netwrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in all circumstances, I was asking if he thinks this truth can be empirically determined to arbitrary precision even in principle, and if so what empirical observations would be used. Jesse Brent -- You received this message because you are
Re: Block Universes
2014-02-07 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net: Quentin, It IS a problem for reality and for relativity, because it exposes a hidden assumption of relativity without which relativity doesn't make sense No, the only problem with relativity, is that you absolutely have no idea how it works, what you state is not a problem for relativity but only for you, it's obvious that the day the universe will burn to its frozen death, you will understand... for the nth time. Quentin , that there must be a common present moment in which relativistic results occur for those results to make sense and be meaningful, for the comparison of different t values to occur. But it's clear from your comments you are here to flame rather than to understand... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:56 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, For starters, as I've said on numerous occasions, it solves the question of how observers can have different relativistic clock times in the same present moment. It doesn't solve anything, because it's not a problem for relativity... I agree that solving a non-existent problem is easy but useless. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:33:02 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I've read all of them, there is nothing about what it is supposed to solve... Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post. 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ? 2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net: Quentin, But it's NOT the case... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netwrote: But recall that p-time is not a directly measurable quantity so arbitrary precision does not apply. You still haven't grasped the concept correctly. P-time has no direct measure, because the present moment is that in which all measures, including those of clock time, are computed. I don't recall you ever spelling that out in conversation with me, thanks for clarifying. In the past people had asked you about how to determine p-time and you had said things like we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe (in the post at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups. com/msg47450.html ). So if you now say that determining which events are simultaneous in p-time is fundamentally impossible for any being within the universe, that answers what I was wondering about in question #1. If that's the case... what good is it to entertain such p-time... it's useless. Predict nothing, cannot be measured. What is p-time supposed to solve ? Jesse Nevertheless the fact of existence of all observers and thus of everything in the present moment is a direct empirical observation. Just like consciousness it is not subject to measure, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netwrote: On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D surfaces such that the density of matter is perfectly uniform on each slice (and that uniform can be characterized by the parameter Omega), unlike in the simple FLRW model where matter is assumed to be distributed in this perfectly uniform way. I don't see that perfect uniformity is necessary. We have calculated our epoch relative to the CMB as 13.8By. I assume any other scientific species in the universe could do the same and so say whether they were 'at the same time' as measured by expansion of the cosmos. I don't see how the existence of galaxies and galaxy clusters precludes this kind of measurement. Using the CMB may give an approximate answer, but would you argue it could distinguish between different simultaneity definitions that agree approximately when averaged over large scales, but disagree somewhat about the details of simultaneity in highly curved regions? For example, could the CMB be used to define a unique definition of simultaneity in the neighborhood of a black hole (where coordinate systems like Schwarzschild coordinates and Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates give very different definitions of simultaneity)? Edgar isn't just claiming some approximate pragmatic truth about simultaneity, he's claiming an absolute and exact truth about simultaneity in
Re: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:13:24PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz and Cowboy, Yes, I guess so if your idea of science is discussing your favorite science fiction movies! :-) Edgar Let me be the first to say that I found the thread on Sci Fi movies to be very useful - I'm always on the lookout for good movie suggestions, and I find the vast bulk of SciFi movies to be very poor in general, so getting recommendations for good ones (the one mentioned here that I've already seen have all been excellent movies) is very useful to add to my viewing list. By the same token, the thread is strictly speaking, off topic. But you are always welcome to ignore the whole thread. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's another question to get to the crux. You claim the twins meet in the same point of spacetime. OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What is the value of that t-coordinate? In my example it was t=50. But it depends entirely on details like when you set the coordinate clocks to 0, what coordinates the twins departed at, and their respective velocities in this coordinate system. And what's the relation of that t-coordinate to the different clock time t-coordinates of the twins? What's the transform that converts the two different clock time t values to the SAME same point t value? Why is there a need for one? If two different measuring tapes cross at a point in space, with and the point where they cross is at the 30 cm mark on one tape and the 40 cm mark on the other, and there's a Cartesian coordinate grid on the surface under them which says this point has an x-coordinate of 50, is there a need for a transformation that changes 30 and 40 to 50? I say there isn't any, that relativity can't supply one. And that this means that, while relativity can arbitrarily DEFINE a same moment in spacetime as you do, it can NOT explain or calculate it. Only my p-time theory does this, relativity doesn't You're saying your p-time theory gives a *mathematical* transformation, or just some sort of conceptual transformation? If mathematical, can you give a specific numerical example showing how it works, and what the transformation function is? Jesse -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your post is you say The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the event. This clock, call it C, on the grid that was at the same point in spacetime as the meeting event (which takes place on earth) is also a clock on earth, at earth's location on the grid. Twin B's clock also stayed at that exact same x,y,z point on the coordinate grid during the trip, and there was no relative motion between B and C. So why does B's clock read 40 years and clock C, which you claim gives the t-value of the meeting event, read 50 years when they were both at the same location during the trip? My scenario never specified that we were using a coordinate system where B was at rest. But yes, if B was at rest next to clock C the whole time, clock C would measure a coordinate time interval of 40 years between A leaving Earth and A returning. That still doesn't necessarily mean that C would actually read 40 years when A returns--it could be that clock C was set to 0 10 years before A departed, for example. It is most common in twin paradox analyses to use a coordinate system where the twins depart at a coordinate time of 0, though. Aren't you mistaken here since clocks B and C are comoving throughout the duration of the trip and thus must remain synchronized? If that is true you seem to be saying that we must preferentially take the stay at home twin's clock time as the correct t-value of the same point in spacetime that the meeting occurs, the clock time of the observer that didn't move from the start to end point. Is that correct? If so, again it's just a definition, and a strange one at that, because no matter if the traveling twin resets his clock to that t-value you claim is the correct/natural? t value of the meeting event, his age still remains just 30. I never said the t-value was correct/natural, it is just the coordinate time in one particular coordinate system, which is no more correct/natural than any other coordinate system. Jesse -- 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: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking On 7 February 2014 11:17, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Perhaps, but also true that most ALS sufferers do not get such attention media adulation. Perhaps because they aren't world famous scientist? I'm not sure what you expect here! Which is what I was suggesting... namely that Hawkins got known first and foremost because of his work and not because of his ALS... though his ALS certainly makes him a compelling figure. I appreciate Mitra feeling bitter about this, but at least it should get his result more public awareness. I do find it very interesting, more so than any squabbling about who was first. Looks like Mitra has done a far better job anyway so that's what I'm really interested in. (Maybe now there will be an article for dummies like me in scientific american...) Also tbh I haven't really thought Hawking was doing much actual science for a long time, as an interested lay-person at least, despite him being called in on the odd well-publicised bet ... (plus his imaginary time idea seems to have dropped off the radar). He's good for the odd quote about the mind of God and fire in the equations... -- 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: Block Universes
I must say, Jesse, I admire your patience and forebearance. -- 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On 7 February 2014 12:13, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz and Cowboy, Yes, I guess so if your idea of science is discussing your favorite science fiction movies! :-) I guess you're more inclined towards the fantasy genre. :-) -- 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: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
On 7 February 2014 13:42, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: -- *From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:34 PM *Subject:* Re: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking On 7 February 2014 11:17, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: Perhaps, but also true that most ALS sufferers do not get such attention media adulation. Perhaps because they aren't world famous scientist? I'm not sure what you expect here! Which is what I was suggesting... namely that Hawkins got known first and foremost because of his work and not because of his ALS... though his ALS certainly makes him a compelling figure. Depends what you mean by well known. He becamse well known by the public when he published A brief history of time - but obviously he was well known amongst physicists for the singularity theorem with Penrose (iirc?) and Hawking radiation. (Of course he only became a rock star once he'd been portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch...) -- 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: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, What's wrong with conscious experience? Every observation of science is ultimately a conscious experience. Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are always of quantitative values that can be measured by some sort of measuring-instrument. Anyway, it's fine with me if you want to argue in favor of p-time using qualitative aspects of conscious experience, and in fact I did address the argument from conscious experience in the last two paragraphs of the post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/jUPOnqbP6hwJ-- I don't think you addressed that part. In any case, I'm trying to get a sense of whether you think there are multiple *independent* arguments in favor of p-time, or whether any argument you could make for p-time would depend crucially on pointing to qualitative aspects of conscious experience. The exact nature of the conscious experience of change seems pretty slippery and hard to pin down, so I would prefer to just agree to disagree about what is proved by conscious experience and discuss other less subjective arguments, if you do have any independent ones. The observation of a present moment we share when we are together in space is the most FUNDAMENTAL observation of all. It's much much more than an intuition. It's a directly observable FACT. As for operational definition, I explained in detail how the theory works on numerous occasions. Giving an operational definition is not the same as a description of how the theory works. Operational means that any terms are defined in terms of some test procedure that anyone could carry out, even one who does not agree from the start about your metaphysical assumptions. For example, my operational definition of same point in spacetime didn't require any assumptions about the ontology of spacetime, it was just things like sending out a light signal and seeing if there was a measurable delay in getting back the reflected signal, or yelling hey! and seeing if the other person starts to react quasi-instantaneously. In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for doing that too much! Once again you repeat the annoying strawman that I am telling you not to discuss your theory, when in fact I was expressing irritation that YOU scolded ME for answering a direct question you asked about my ideas with an on-topic answer. I guess you're not going to apologize for that, you think it was entirely fair to scold me for an on-topic response to your own question? Jesse Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:28:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine? No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about *my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly change the subject and make scolding comments like Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same present moment of p-time. And now when I explain that I was just responding to your questions and give you quotes showing that you had been asking about my model, instead of apologizing for losing track of what we'd been talking about you get all pouty and pretend I'm saying we can only discuss my ideas. I just don't like being scolded for giving an on-topic response to some questions of yours, that's all. I suggest the way to progress is to discuss and compare both which is what I was/am doing... Yes, I'd like to understand your take on whether relativity can give a coherent account of what phrases like same point in spacetime really mean physically. I think I understand that from your reflected light test. But my point remains that that just provides a limited definition of a local same point in spacetime. It does NOT explain WHY the twins meet in that same present moment. Rather it just defines that they do after the fact with the reflected light test. Like I said, it can also predict that this will happen in advance, by using an inertial coordinate system and the known equations of physics to predict both the path and clock readings of the twins and to model the light signals being sent out and reflected between them, and predicting what their clocks read at the point where the reflection time goes to zero. But it doesn't explain why and that is something relativity can't seem to calculate or explain. What relativity does here is admit there is something it can't explain or calculate (why the twins meet in a shared present moment) Can you give an operational definition of this shared present moment, one that goes beyond just the observation that the time between an action directed at the other gets an almost immediate response (whether we're talking about
Re: Block Universes
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:59:53PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, What's wrong with conscious experience? Every observation of science is ultimately a conscious experience. Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are always of quantitative values that can be measured by some sort of measuring-instrument. Anyway, it's fine with me if you want to argue in favor of p-time using qualitative aspects of conscious experience, and in fact I did address the argument from conscious experience in the last two paragraphs of the post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/jUPOnqbP6hwJ-- I don't think you addressed that part. In any case, I'm trying to get a sense of whether you think there are multiple *independent* arguments in favor of p-time, or whether any argument you could make for p-time would depend crucially on pointing to qualitative aspects of conscious experience. The exact nature of the conscious experience of change seems pretty slippery and hard to pin down, so I would prefer to just agree to disagree about what is proved by conscious experience and discuss other less subjective arguments, if you do have any independent ones. A subjective present moment is not a problem, indeed it is required for my TIME postulate, although I would argue that the past light cone is probably a more useful concept than a spacelike foliation. The problem is with an intersubjective present moment, such as Edgar seems to be promoting, which is not compatible with relativity. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)
On 7 February 2014 09:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:39, LizR wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Which among the next symbolic expressions is the one being a well formed
formula:
((p - q) - ((p (p V r)) - q))
))(p-)##à89- a - q)
OK?
I sure hope so.
Well, I will pray a little bit.
(to be sure the irst one might contain a typo, but I assure you there are
no typo in the second one (and there is no cat walking on the keyboard).
***
Then a set of worlds get alive when each proposition (p, q, r), in each
world get some truth value, t, or f. I will say that the mutiverse is
illuminated.
And we can decide to put f and t is the propositional symbol for the
boolean constant true and false.
(meaning that p - f is a proposition, or well formed formula).
In modal logic it is often simpler to use only the connector - and
that if possible if you have the constant f.
For example you can define ~p as an abbreviation for (p - f), as you
should see by doing a truth table. OK?
p - f is (~p V f), for which the truth table is indeed the same as ~p
OK.
(Can you define , V, with - and f in the same way? This is not
an exercise, just a question!).
I don't think I can define those *literally* with p, - and f if that's
what you mean.
That is what I mean, indeed.
OK, having had a look at what you say below, let's have another go. Start
from p - q being equivalent to (~p V q)
That gives us ~p - q equiv (p V q) and from the above ~p is (p - f) so p
V q is (p - f) - q which I seem to remember is what you got. OK so far.
p q --- well, p - q is ~(p ~q), so ~(p - q) = (p ~q) and ~(p - ~q)
= (p q)
so ~(p - (q - f)) which I guess is ((p - ( q - f)) - f) = (p q)
Does it?!?! Looking below, I see that it does. Wow.
But that doesn't make sense, because requires two arguments, so it would
have to be something like ... well, p - q is (~p V q) and it's also ~(p
~q), which contain V and ... I'm not sure I know what you mean.
Like for ~, to define and V to a machine which knows only -
and f. You can use the ~, as you have alredy see that you can define
it with - and f.
I reason aloud. Please tell me if you understand.
First we know that p - q is just ~p V q, OK?
So the V looks already close to -. Except that instead of ~p V q
(which is p - q) we want p V q.
May be we can substitute just p by ~p: and p V q might be then ~p - q,
Well, you can do the truth table of ~p - q, and see that it is the same
as p V q.
To finish it of course, we can eliminate the ~, and we have that p V q
is entirely defined by (p - f) - q.
OK?
And the :
Well, we already know a relationship between the and the V, OK? The
De Morgan relations.
So, applying the de Morgan relation, p q is the same as ~(~p V ~q),
(the same logically, not pragmatically, of course).
That solves the problem.
But we can verify, perhaps simplify. We can eliminate the V by the
definition above (A V B = ~A - B),
~(~p V ~q) becomes ~(~~p - ~q), that is ~(p - ~q). Or, to really settle
the things, and define from - and f:
p q = ((p - (q - f)) - f).
OK?
Apparently, yes.
Each world, once illuminated (that is once each proposition letter has
a value f or t) inherits of the semantics of classical proposition logic.
This means that if p and q are true in some world alpha, then (p q) is
true in that world alpha, etc.
in particular all tautologies, or propositional laws, is true in all
illuminated multiverse, and this for all illuminations (that for all
possible assignment of truth value to the world).
OK?
Question: If the multiverse is the set {a, b}, how many illuminated
multiverses can we get?
I suppose 4, since we have a world with 2 propositions, and each can be t
or f?
Answer: there is three letters p, q, r, leading to eight valuations
possible in a, and the same in b, making a total of 64 valuations, if I am
not too much distracted. I go quick. This is just to test if you get the
precise meanings.
Oh, OK. So a and b are worlds, not ... sorry. I see.
Good.
So that is 2^3 x 2^3 because a has p,q,r = 3 values, all t or f, as does
b. OK now I see what you meant.
OK.
Of course with the infinite alphabet {p, q, r, p1, q1, r1, p2, ... } we
already have a continuum of multiverses.
I can't quite see why it's a continuum. Each world has a countable
infinity of letters, and the number of worlds is therefore 2 ^ countable
infinity! Is that a continuum?
Yes. We proved it, Liz.
Yes I had a sneaky suspicion we did. It seems familiar ... a bit.
Take a the infinite propositional symbol letters {p, q, r, p1, q1, r1, p2,
... } . They are well ordered. So a sequence of 1 and 0 (other common name
for t and f) can be interpreted as being a valuation. The valuation are the
infinite sequences of 1 and 0. Or the function from N to {0, 1}.
If such a set of function was in
Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even biosphere. No. Read again OK... It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004). That still seems to be saying what I just said. The dimensions in possibility space is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins you could make? NO WAY -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On 7 February 2014 15:47, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: He wrote one paragraph on the Lloyd limit and concluded These sorts of arguments are at best suggestive. In fact the entire paper was about quantum effects in biology. He even suggests replacing bits by qubits. No mention of 60 amino acids is about the size of the smallest functional protein and so on. I agree that he is talking about the number of different protein configurations that may be made and when that number exceeds the Lloyd limit, strong emergence may result in some such proteins actually being made. But that seems very ad hoc to me now- something you seem to have realized immediately. My apologies, Richard OK. Sorry if I was a bit sharp. -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
OK, I concede. I read Davies 2004 for a fuller explanation, On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 February 2014 14:20, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even biosphere. No. Read again OK... It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004). That still seems to be saying what I just said. The dimensions in possibility space is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins you could make? NO WAY Go on then, what is it saying? Please give a little more explanation, if you keep on just saying no I will have to assume you don't actually have anything of interest to say. OK, I concede. I read Davies 2004 for a fuller explanation, and I found nothing relevant to his remarks that are under discussion. He wrote one paragraph on the Lloyd limit and concluded These sorts of arguments are at best suggestive. In fact the entire paper was about quantum effects in biology. He even suggests replacing bits by qubits. No mention of 60 amino acids is about the size of the smallest functional protein and so on. I agree that he is talking about the number of different protein configurations that may be made and when that number exceeds the Lloyd limit, strong emergence may result in some such proteins actually being made. But that seems very ad hoc to me now- something you seem to have realized immediately. My apologies, Richard -- 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.
Upon reflection
Here's a problem that occurred to me recently - nothing profound, but for some reason googling doesn't seem to have given me a sensible answer. Suppose I have a large cylinder, with the inside surface mirrored, and I stand inside it - what do I see? I suspect I see a long thin version of myself, but if I move so my eye is at the exact centre I'm guessing I see a huge eyeball all over the inside! Or do 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: Upon reflection
On 2/6/2014 6:53 PM, LizR wrote: Here's a problem that occurred to me recently - nothing profound, but for some reason googling doesn't seem to have given me a sensible answer. Suppose I have a large cylinder, with the inside surface mirrored, and I stand inside it - what do I see? I suspect I see a long thin version of myself, No, a wide fat version. but if I move so my eye is at the exact centre I'm guessing I see a huge eyeball all over the inside! Or do I? You're eyeball image can't be taller than you eyeball. Are you thinking of having an MRI? 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: Upon reflection
On 7 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Are you thinking of having an MRI? I've had one, about 18 months ago. It was the most frightening experiences of a week in hospital that included having my gall bladder removed. But I didn't get to see the inside of the cylinder (except for the odd glimpse) because I had to keep my eyes shut. This was just curiosity, plus the fact that a similar situation occurs in a story I'm writing. -- 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: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
On 7 February 2014 14:20, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 February 2014 02:01, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So he's saying the number of proteins you COULD make from around 60 amino acids exceeds the Lloyd limit - not that there in fact is a Lloyd limit's worth of information stored in a given protein, brain, organism or even biosphere. No. Read again OK... It is of interest to determine just how complex a physical system has to be to encounter the Lloyd limit. For most purposes in physical science the limit is too weak to make a jot of difference. But in cases where the parameters of the system are combinatorically explosive, the limit can be significant. For example, proteins are made of strings of 20 different sorts of amino acids, and the combinatoric possibility space has more dimensions than the Lloyd limit of 10^120 when the number of amino acids is greater than about 60 (Davies, 2004). That still seems to be saying what I just said. The dimensions in possibility space is surely equivalent to the number of different proteins you could make? NO WAY Go on then, what is it saying? Please give a little more explanation, if you keep on just saying no I will have to assume you don't actually have anything of interest to say. -- 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: Upon reflection
No, I get fatter, don't I? Like this guy, who (I think) is looking in a concave mirror. [image: Inline images 1] On 7 February 2014 15:53, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a problem that occurred to me recently - nothing profound, but for some reason googling doesn't seem to have given me a sensible answer. Suppose I have a large cylinder, with the inside surface mirrored, and I stand inside it - what do I see? I suspect I see a long thin version of myself, but if I move so my eye is at the exact centre I'm guessing I see a huge eyeball all over the inside! Or do 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.
