Re: Upon reflection
No problem. The UDA work without limitation of resources, thanks to Turing and Godel. So you can do whatever weird thing you want without any fear of receiving a big electric bill at the end of the month 2014-02-07 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, It doesn't give a coordinate transformation, it gives an explanation. Shortly I'll post a longer analysis... Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:01:11 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 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
Jesse, OK, so we agree here. Your coordinate time just references the well known fact that one can use more or less any arbitrary coordinate system in relativity, and that none is intrinsically any 'better' than any other, though some may be more useful than others. I have no problem with that at all, it's always been my understanding. So again I find this whole digression into coordinate time irrelevant to the fundamental issue of the fact that the twins have different clock times in a single present moment. Coordinate time just says, well we could have a coordinate system that would independently label that present moment as having any clock time we want. But that does not alter the fact that the twins have real actual AGES that are different. Again I will post shortly a longer and more complete analysis of where I think the discussion stands... Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 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: Block Universes
Liz, and Jesse, Yes, I second that! Jesse has very patiently explained his side of the argument in a lot of thoughtful detail which I very much appreciate. It's been an excellent opportunity for me to test and clarify the arguments in support of my position. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:46:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: 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: Block Universes
Jesse, Again I will post shortly a detailed analysis addressing this and other points you've made. Best, Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 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
Re: Block Universes
Russell, My theory is COMPLETELY compatible with relativity. You just don't understand my theory if you think that... Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:26:43 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: 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 edga...@att.netjavascript: 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 hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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: Upon reflection
Liz, Interesting question, but for more fun make it a pinpoint eye looking in every direction at once from the center toward the mirrored interior surface of sphere. Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R 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.
Re: Upon reflection
PS: I suspect you will seem very full of yourself when you do that! :-) All you really have to do is use the standard ray tracing algorithms of computer graphics for the answer Edgar On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R 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.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. What we must conclude from this experiment is that it is only being at the same TIME that is relevant when the twins meet, and the fact that the meeting twins are at the same point in SPACE is NOT relevant. They can still share a present moment no matter where they are in the billion twin line, but they cannot share a same point in spacetime. Therefore to be accurate we must recognize we are talking about a common present moment, not a common point in spacetime, and we must recognize that by BOTH our operation definitions, every twin in a billion twin line agrees they are in the same present moment and so we must also agree to that. OK, now imagine that the entirety of space in the universe is packed full of twins like sardines. Every twin in the universe agrees he is in the same present moment with all the twins adjacent to him in any direction. And again that relationship is transitive. Therefore every twin in the entire universe must be in the same present moment. Based on our agreed operation definition there is no other possible conclusion. Thus we have proved that there is a single universal present moment shared by all observers in the universe and thus by all things in the universe. The current state of the universe exists in a single universal present moment. And all the relativistic changes in clock times occur WITHIN (actually are computed within) that common universal present moment. And I accept EVERY ONE of those results of relativity without exception. The common present moment of p-time does not falsify a single conclusion of relativity. It merely provides the necessary common present moment context for them to be actually compared by an observer and only thus to have their meaning. Now one final point: You criticize me for relying on conscious experience presumably when it comes to the twins shaking hands and comparing watches. But of course your reflected light test also relies on conscious experience to the exact same extent, as EVERY possible scientific observation does. Without conscious experience there can be no scientific observation. Shaking hands and comparing watches is equally quantitative to reflected light to address that question of yours. Thus to conclude it is clear that the twins do meet in a shared present moment, and this shared present moment is universal. And it is clear this is NOT a matter of meeting at a same point in spacetime because it doesn't matter where in space any particular twin is, he still shares a common present moment with every other observer in the universe. By our agreed operation definitions, every observer in the universe is ALWAYS in his OWN present moment no matter how he may travel or his clock time relativistically
Re: Block Universes
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. Well, in my discussion I believe I alternated between two subtly different definitions--one which said the light-signal-return-time actually went to zero, and another which said that it was negligible. The first definition was an ideal theoretical description--and if the twins in your thought-experiment were ideal point-like observers who could literally have the time delay of light signals approach zero at the moment on each of their clocks where they met, then you could have a billion of them meeting in such a way and the fact of delay time approaching zero would really be completely transitive. But the second definition was just an approximate practical one. Negligible is obviously a fuzzy term which depends on how precise your instruments are--if the twins are standing 0.3 meters apart and they use the light test, a sufficiently sensitive instrument will reveal it actually takes about 2 nanoseconds between emitting a light flash and getting back the reflection. Likewise if they shake hands, sufficiently good equipment would show a much larger delay between the moment their hands touch and the moment the train of nerve impulses set off by the touch reaches the brain (and the atoms of their hands don't really touch, so there would even be some sub-nanosecond delay between a motion in an atom in the palm of one hand and its effect on the motion of an atom in the palm of the other hand). For a normal experiment like the twin paradox, we won't get any noticeably inaccurate results if we model them as meeting at the same point in spacetime when sufficiently accurate measurements might show them a light-nanosecond apart. But your row-of-twins scenario is obviously constructed in a way where we'll get wrong conclusions if we treat negligible the same as zero, since if you stack up a bunch of zeros you still always get zero, but if you stack up a bunch of negligible, unmeasurable differences you eventually get a measurable difference. I'm sure you would run into the same problem if I asked you for a practical operational definition of same point in space--any such practical difference is going to ignore very small gaps that are too small for our measuring-instruments to discern (or just aren't worth worrying about in our calculations), but obviously if you stack up a sufficient number of small things with small spatial gaps you may get an arbitrarily large spatial distance between both ends of the stack. Now one final point: You criticize me for relying on conscious experience presumably when it comes to the twins shaking hands and comparing watches. No, when I talked about conscious experience I meant the vague qualitative sense
Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis
Thanks for the link Chris. It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are involved in chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do communicate chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to, and influence, neurons. I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the information treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for consciousness, but I would not been astonished, that glial cells would be important for surviving some long period of time. (Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of making the substitution level lower, and this does not change the consequences.) Bruno On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote: Liz - The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes everything we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the key role it now appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the formation of memories. Astrocytes account for around 90% of all brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow on ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge within vastly parallel networks as well), it is too early to put hard upper boundaries on capacity. If we are just now discovering previously overlooked critical actors for the formation of memories; do we even really know that much about the physical mechanisms for memory in the brain? This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly interested; I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale understanding of brain functioning is required in order to form a theory of consciousness, self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel we are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of gestalt moment when all the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic elegant theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand understanding of the brain/mind and of ourselves emerges. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis 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). 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 thisquora.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
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 06 Feb 2014, at 17:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:00:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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? That is the subject of logic. I'm not trying to learn logic, I see. I'm trying to show that logic cannot You have to learn something, be it logic or comp, to pretend that it cannot do something. Usually proof of impossibility are very demanding. 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. Logic cannot even explain the natural numbers. Nobody pretends that logic can explain anything. But arithmetic can, when we assume comp, and logic can help a lot. 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. Yes. 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... So your non-comp *is*panpsychist? it might be that they live through us in the form of aesthetic qualities in our imagination. We know that they do. We know nothing. Or if we know something, we keep it for us. We can only reason from belief that we can share, even if temporarily. What we do not know is that they live anywhere else. Once you take the omnipotence and omniscience that you lend to numbers, Where. You again attribute to me something I have never said. Actually all I do is based on the limitations of 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*, No, they are simple to everyone between 7 and 77 years, old. 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. Some rumors is that a biilions cells colony has some responsibility in this. Some concept can be simple. The understanding of those simple thing IS NOT simple. 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. If you have a problem with 4+1=5, you need to revised a bit. 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? Why not, but that is not obvious. 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
Re: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 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 yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do say I am to be thanked as well and more so, but on the other hand you send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your eyes. One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to really that much of fuckat least for that to matter whether or not something is a good post. What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a snob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: 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. True and unprovable is only G* minus G. But the private transcendence is a more complex phenomenon in which Z* minus Z and X* minus X participate. 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. The hope is that X1* is a quantum logic à la John Bell (the logician, not the physicist), already used to model a notion of qualia, by proximity relations on perceptible fields. There are infinitely many true but unprovable propositions. Why are the qualia we experience the ones that they are and not some others? Because the one that they are probably maximizes the probability to eat, and minimizes the probability to be eaten. Insects color qualia are probably quite different, because it is driven by the sexual strategy of plants. 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: Unput and Onput
On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: 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. True and unprovable is only G* minus G. But the private transcendence is a more complex phenomenon in which Z* minus Z and X* minus X participate. 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. The hope is that X1* is a quantum logic à la John Bell (the logician, not the physicist), already used to model a notion of qualia, by proximity relations on perceptible fields. There are infinitely many true but unprovable propositions. Why are the qualia we experience the ones that they are and not some others? Because the one that they are probably maximizes the probability to eat, and minimizes the probability to be eaten. That just makes it the qualia of the gaps. You can't negatively assert positive identities like blue or itchy. Neither one would minimize or maximize anything inherently. If they had an implicit function like that, then there would be no reason for them anyhow as a regular quantitative value could be used instead. We don't live in a universe where qualia appears wherever a function implies that it would be convenient. Craig Insects color qualia are probably quite different, because it is driven by the sexual strategy of plants. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
New Type of Star Emerges From Inside Black Holes
FYI only. Don't have an opinion. Edgar New Type of Star Emerges From Inside Black Holes Born inside black holes, “Planck stars” could explain one of astrophysics’ biggest mysteries and may already have been observed by orbiting gamma ray telescopes, say cosmologists • The Physics arXiv Blog in The Physics arXiv Blog Black holes have fascinated scientists and the public alike for decades. There is special appeal in the idea that the universe contains regions of space so dense that light itself cannot escape and so extreme that the laws of physics no longer apply. What secrets can these extraordinary objects hide? Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of Carlo Rovelli at the University of Toulon in France, and Francesca Vidotto at Radboud University in the Netherlands. These guys say that inside every black hole is the ghostly, quantum remains of the star from which it formed. And that these stars can later emerge as the black hole evaporates. Rovelli and Vidotto call these objects “Planck stars” and say they could solve one of the most important questions in astrophysics. What’s more, evidence for the existence of Planck stars may be readily available, simply by looking to the heavens. Black holes arise naturally from Einstein’s theory of general relativity which predicts that gravity influences the trajectory of photons moving through space. Indeed, when gravity is strong enough, light shouldn’t be able to escape at all. That region is then a black hole. Astrophysicists have long believed that black holes form when stars a little bigger than the Sun run out of fuel. No longer supported by thermal energy, the star collapses under its own weight to form a black hole. Since there is no known force that can stop this collapse, astrophysicists have always assumed that it eventually forms a singularity, a region of space that is infinitely dense. But this has never been entirely satisfactory. The laws of physics break down in a region of infinite density, leaving physicists scratching their heads over what must be going on inside a black hole. Even worse, many physicists believe black holes slowly evaporate and disappear. That raises problems because the information that describes an object must fully determine its future and be fully derivable from its past, at least in principle. But if black holes disappear, what happens to this information? Nobody knows, a problem known as the “information paradox” and one of the hottest mysteries in astrophysics. Now Rovelli and Vidotto have the answer. They begin by revisiting some ideas about what might happen should the universe end in a big crunch, the opposite of a big bang. Their key insight is that quantum gravitational effects prevent the universe from collapsing to infinite density. Instead, the universe ”bounces” when the energy density of matter reaches the Planck scale, the smallest possible size in physics. That’s hugely significant. “The bounce does not happen when the universe is of planckian size, as was previously expected; it happens when the matter energy density reaches the Planck density,” they say. In other words, quantum gravity could become relevant when the volume of the universe is some 75 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck volume. Rovelli and Vidotto say the same reasoning can be applied to a black hole. Instead of forming a singularity, the collapse of a star is eventually stopped by the same quantum pressure, a force that is similar to the one that prevents an electron falling into the nucleus of an atom. “We call a star in this phase a “Planck star”,” they say. Planck stars would be small— stellar-mass black hole would form a Planck star about 10^-10 centimetres in diameter. But that’s still some 30 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. An interesting question is whether these Planck stars would be stable throughout the life of the black hole that surrounds them. Rovelli and Vidotto have a fascinating answer. They say that the lifetime of a Planck star is extremely short, about the length of time it takes for light to travel across it. But to an outside observer, Planck stars would appear to exist much longer. That’s because time slows down near high-density masses. For such an observer , a Planck star would last just as long as its parent black hole. It then becomes possible for the black hole to interact with the Planck star it contains. Rovelli and Vidotto point out that as the black hole evaporates and shrinks, its boundary will eventually meet that of the Planck star as it expands after the bounce. “At this point there is no horizon any more and all information trapped inside can escape,” they say. That immediately solves the information paradox. The information isn’t lost or trapped inside an unimaginably small region of space but eventually re-emitted into the universe. There’s yet another exciting consequence of these ideas. Rovelli and
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the same point of time, and that same point in time is obviously not anything that relativity predicts, because no matter what set of coordinates you choose, relativity always gives 2 different real answers for the ages of the twins. That has nothing to do with them being at the same point of SPACE since their ages were also becoming different DURING the trip when they were separated in space. But it has everything to do with them being in the SAME present moment, because only in the same present moment can their ages and clocks be compared. As for your last paragraph you seem to agree that both our operational definitions DO support the notion of a same present moment, just not that time flows. But of course anyone can just look at their clocks and see it does, but I'm happy to just accept our agreement that our operational definitions do support a same present moment. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. Well, in my discussion I believe I alternated between two subtly different definitions--one which said the light-signal-return-time actually went to zero, and another which said that it was negligible. The first definition was an ideal theoretical description--and if the twins in your thought-experiment were ideal point-like observers who could literally have the time delay of light signals approach zero at the moment on each of their clocks where they met, then you could have a billion of them meeting in such a way and the fact of delay time approaching zero would really be completely transitive. But the second definition was just an approximate practical one. Negligible is obviously a fuzzy term which depends on how precise your instruments are--if the twins are standing 0.3 meters apart and they use the light test, a sufficiently sensitive instrument will reveal it actually takes about 2 nanoseconds between emitting a light flash and getting back the reflection. Likewise if they shake hands, sufficiently good equipment would show a much larger delay between the moment their hands touch and the moment the train of nerve impulses set off by the touch reaches the brain (and the atoms of their hands don't really touch, so there would even be some sub-nanosecond delay
Re: Unput and Onput
On 06 Feb 2014, at 20:54, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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? Because the paper convinced me, and this by assuming the most elementary mathematic. No reference at all to anything physical is mentioned. Turing's model *looks like* a sort of physical device, but that's only part of Turing's pedagogy. Turing machine are mathematical objects, and they can be defined in arithmetic. 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. Then you are like explaining the simple things that we agree on by the complex things nobody agree on. 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? I said *some* private transcendence, because to be honest on this needs, if only the completion of the course in modal logic, and much more. But the main idea of transcendence is that it looks real or true, yet you cannot justify it, or prove it to another. typical human candidate is consciousness, sense (I guess), the belief in a primitive physical universe, or in God, but also different kinds of relations that machines can have with different kind of infinities. How do you know that such a condition is not a 1 dimensional data transformation rather than an introspective aesthetic environment? As far as I can make sense of this, I would say that once a machine looks inward, she is confronted to 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? It depends who you are. 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. That's the point. I am using the fact of their colloquial relation as support for Comp being misguided. I do not support comp. On the contrary, I try to measure how much incredible it is, but up to now, QM might remains still a little bit more incredible. 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' Of course. that is why we assume comp. Which is reasonable, if only because there is no evidence for non comp. - at least not without a theory of why math would become unlike itself and what that would mean. But that's exactly what I offer to you! 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
Re: R there 2 Max Tegmarks'? Was: Max Tegmark retires Infinity at Edge Question
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:35:07 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: 2 Maxes? Hmm. Can't be bad. Maybe he has an evil twin! (or maybe this is an unexpected result of that quantum suicide experiment he talked about a few years back...) I actually emailed him for clarification where he stood. No response as of yet...possibly no response likely. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than when it was sent. This is true no matter what the distance is. So imagine doing this for every possible distance. The time of return will always be different than the time of sending, and this will vary continuously with distance. So your OWN operational test of measuring the time light takes to reflect ASSUMES that time flows and light moves continuously IN time as time flows... Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. Well, in my discussion I believe I alternated between two subtly different definitions--one which said the light-signal-return-time actually went to zero, and another which said that it was negligible. The first definition was an ideal theoretical description--and if the twins in your thought-experiment were ideal point-like observers who could literally have the time delay of light signals approach zero at the moment on each of their clocks where they met, then you could have a billion of them meeting in such a way and the fact of delay time approaching zero would really be completely transitive. But the second definition was just an approximate practical one. Negligible is obviously a fuzzy term which depends on how precise your instruments are--if the twins are standing 0.3 meters apart and they use the light test, a sufficiently sensitive instrument will reveal it actually takes about 2 nanoseconds between emitting a light flash and getting back the reflection. Likewise if they shake hands, sufficiently good equipment would show a much larger delay between the moment their hands touch and the moment the train of nerve impulses set off by the touch reaches the brain (and the atoms of their hands don't really touch, so there would even be some sub-nanosecond delay between a motion in an atom in the palm of one hand and its effect on the motion of an atom in the palm of the other hand). For a normal experiment like the twin paradox, we won't get any noticeably inaccurate results if we model them as meeting at the same point in spacetime when sufficiently accurate measurements might show them a light-nanosecond apart. But your row-of-twins scenario is obviously constructed in a way where we'll get wrong conclusions if we treat negligible the same as zero, since if you stack up a bunch of zeros you still always get zero, but if you stack up a bunch of negligible, unmeasurable differences you eventually get a measurable difference. I'm sure
Re: Block Universes
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding? But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the same point of time Huh? Even if one accepts p-time, that operational definition still must be seen as a merely *approximate* way of defining the same point of p-time, not exact, just like with same point in space or same point in spacetime. If I bounce some light off you, surely you agree that the event of it reflecting off you occurred at a slightly earlier point in p-time that the event of reaching my eyes (or instruments)? Likewise if I feel our palms meet in a handshake, I don't actually begin to feel it until a slightly later moment of p-time than the moment our palms first made physical contact, and likewise for any shift or movement you might make with your hands. If you want to talk in a non-approximate way, all our experiences are slightly delayed impressions of events that occured in the past, regardless of whether we're talking about p-time or coordinate time. On this subject, could you address the question I asked in another post about whether you think there's any empirical way to determine whether two events in the past occurred at the same p-time, or whether the assumption of p-time simultaneity is a purely metaphysical one and that there's no way of knowing whether a specific pair of events we have records of actually happened simultaneously in p-time? and that same point in time is obviously not anything that relativity predicts, because no matter what set of coordinates you choose, relativity always gives 2 different real answers for the ages of the twins. I don't know what part of this you're not understanding, same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate, relativity doesn't deal with any absolute notion of simultaneity of distant events whatsoever. And relativity definitely does predict situations where clocks show different readings at the same coordinate time--do you deny this? Like I said earlier, there is a direct spatial analogy here that makes perfect sense if you don't assume p-time from the start. If two different measuring tapes cross, 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, wouldn't you say that the measuring tapes DO cross at the same point in space? Would the fact that the tapes themselves show two different readings at that point negate this? As for your last paragraph you seem to agree that both our operational definitions DO support the notion of a same present moment, just not that time flows. How do you figure? My last paragraph was just clarifying what I meant by arguments dependent on conscious experience vs. arguments defined in terms of straightforward experiments whose results we can all observe and agree on. Nowhere did I say anything in support of an absolute same present moment. Jesse On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional. If so then right now your brain is not 100% functional because over the past year all of the material in it has been replaced. My brain of last year is no longer 100% functional, but my brain of this moment is. Craig 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: Block Universes
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than when it was sent. And how does that prove that time flows in a non-block-timey sense? From a geometric point of view, it just means that if you have a v-shaped path through spacetime of a light signal that intersects my worldline at two different points, then those two events have different proper times on my clock (because naturally, *any* two distinct points on my worldline have distinct proper times). If you're just talking about the fact that the event of the signal being sent always happens at an earlier proper time than the event of it being received, that's ultimately a consequence of the thermodynamic arrow of time and the fact that the entropy of the universe is continually increasing from a low-entropy Big Bang--if the laws of physics are deterministic it would in principle be possible to set up a special set of initial conditions for an isolated system that would ensure entropy would decrease towards a future minimum rather than increase, and in such a system there would be time-reversed signal reception events that happened before time-reversed transmission events. Jesse On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. Well, in my discussion I believe I alternated between two subtly different definitions--one which said the light-signal-return-time actually went to zero, and another which said that it was negligible. The first definition was an ideal theoretical description--and if the twins in your thought-experiment were ideal point-like observers who could literally have the time delay of light signals approach zero at the moment on each of their clocks where they met, then you could have a billion of them meeting in such a way and the fact of delay time approaching zero would really be completely transitive. But the second definition was just an approximate practical one. Negligible is obviously a fuzzy term which depends on how precise your instruments are--if the twins are standing 0.3 meters apart and they use the light test, a sufficiently sensitive instrument will reveal it actually takes about 2 nanoseconds between emitting a light flash and getting back the reflection. Likewise if they shake hands, sufficiently good equipment would show a much larger delay between the moment their hands touch and the moment the train of nerve impulses set off by the touch reaches the brain (and the atoms of their hands don't really touch, so there would even be
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
If there were identical triplets, and one of them grew up on the other side of the world and spoke a different language, while the others grew up in the same state and spoke the same language, do you think that a neuroscientist could figure out with certainty which triplet spoke the other language (not by looking at trace compounds that would identify a geographic region, etc, but strictly by the vast number of different words and phrases that they use)? On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional. If so then right now your brain is not 100% functional because over the past year all of the material in it has been replaced. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Computation is 3p, and consciousness is 1p, and no 1p thing can be a 3p thing. Sure it can. There is no consistent definition of p so 3p can be anything as can 1p. And I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why if intelligent behavior (which can be detected objectively) and consciousness (which can only be observed subjectively) can be totally separated why did random mutation and natural selection bother to invent consciousness? And I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at least once, and perhaps many times. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional. If so then right now your brain is not 100% functional because over the past year all of the material in it has been replaced. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:03:36 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: Computation is 3p, and consciousness is 1p, and no 1p thing can be a 3p thing. Sure it can. There is no consistent definition of p so 3p can be anything as can 1p. A 3p can be derived from a 1p (I can consciously compute, I can dream subjective meanings as objects or places), but a 1p cannot be derived from a 3p. Craig And I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why if intelligent behavior (which can be detected objectively) and consciousness (which can only be observed subjectively) can be totally separated why did random mutation and natural selection bother to invent consciousness? And I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at least once, and perhaps many times. 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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@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 yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do say I am to be thanked as well and more so, but on the other hand you send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your eyes. One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to really that much of fuckat least for that to matter whether or not something is a good post. What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a snob p.s. don't worry I forgive you p.p.s. tee hee -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Biology, Buddha and the irreflexive Multiverse (was Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)
On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote: 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, OK. Nice. but alpha is not accessible from alpha OK. and A is not true in any other world accessible from alpha. OK. Does it follow that A is not true in alpha? Yes. That does follow. How frustrating! A is true, but not possible. How could that makes sense? Well, this does not make sense ... in the Leibnizian multiverse. For sure. I don't see the point allowing that worlds may not be accesible from themselves? Does that have some application? Yes. First you prove to everybody that I can see in the future, as I announced yesterday the discovery of a Kripke multiverse violating the law []A - A. You just did. Well, in alpha, to be sure, []A - A is true (OK?), but []~A - ~A is falsified, as []~A is true (~A is true in all accessible world from alpha), and ~A is false in alpha, as A is true is true in alpha, and worlds obeys CPL). That amounts to the same, as the laws do not depend on the valuation. If []A - A is a law, []~A - ~A should follow. Note that []~A - ~A, is equivalent with (contraposition, double negation): ~~A - ~[]~A = A - A A - A is the dual formulation of []A - A. As law, they are equivalent. But as formula in one world, they can oppose to each other. So you did find a Kripke multiverse violating the *law* []A - A. And you did find the culprit: those bizarre world which does not access to themselves. Does that have some application? Yes. 1) An easy one, which plays some role in what I like to call the simplest buddhist theory of life ever! And that theory is a subtheory of G, and so will stay with us. That theory models life by worlds accessibility. To be alive at alpha means that t is true in alpha. It means that there is, at least, one world accessible from alpha. To die at alpha means that t is false in alpha. But t is true in alpha, as t is true in all worlds, so the only way to have t false, is that there are no accessible worlds from alpha, at all, including itself. That makes alpha into a cul-de-sac world. So in Kripke semantics, ~t, or equivalently []f, characterizes the cul-de-sac world. Then the simplest buddhist theory of life ever is just the statement, If you are alive, then you can die. It means that for all worlds alpha where you are alive (t is true), you can access to a cul-de-sac world. It means that everywhere, in all worlds we t - []f, or equivalently t - ~[]t. 2) If you interpret t by intelligent, and []f by stupid, you get with the same multiverse, my general theory of intelligence and stupidity. 3) if you interpret [] by provability (in PA, or in ZF), again, t - ~[]t is a law. Read: if I am consistent, then I can't prove that I am consistent. It is easy to see that the law t - ~[]t is a direct consequence of the formula of Löb []([]A - A) - []A. Just put t in place of A, and keep in mind that A - f is just ~A, and then contra-pose: []([]A - A) - []A []([]f - f) - []f [](~[]f) - []f ~[]f - ~[](~[]f) t - ~[]t The worlds in the Kripke mutiverse characterizing G are like that, they don't access to themselves. []A- A is not an arithmetical law from the 3p self-referential view of the machine, but that is why the Theaetetus idea is applicable and will give the non trivial S4Grz for the knower, or first person, fro which []A - A is indispensable. Some might be astonished that []f is true in a cul-de-sac world. But kripe semantics say that []f is true in alpha then f is true in all accessible worlds from alpha. This really means (for all beta): (alpha R beta) - (beta satisfy f). But (alpha R beta) is always false, and (beta satisfy f) is always false, so (alpha R beta) - (beta satisfy f). OK? 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
Re: Block Universes
On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:30, LizR wrote: 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. Hmm, EPR will use there polarization states, and their entanglement. 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: Unput and Onput
On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote: 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?) Ys, but that is why it is meaningfull to say that we derive physics from zero physical assumption. We derive physics from TU, which is defined in pure arithmetic, and has indeed no relation at all with physics *in his definition*. It involves only 0, successor, and the * and + laws, nothing else. Of course arithmetic and TU has something to do with physics, *at some level*, assuming comp, and well, in the psychology or theology of the TUs, which is itself derived from arithmetical self-reference. But this means that physics has some plausible relation with the UT. The UT itself, at his definition level, is a purely arithmetical notion. OK? 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: Indian physicist resolved Black Hole paradox much before Hawking
On 06 Feb 2014, at 22:49, LizR wrote: Hawking gets the attention because he has ALS. It's not a tradeoff many would want to make. He might get attention also because he is a star in the field (rather well deserve for its accomplishment). Of course it is good for him, and possibly sad for some other scientists, which might do good work but be ignored. History of science is full of misattributions of all kind. It is not really important for the ideas, but of course it can be important for the more peculiar steak, moral, fundings, etc. 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: Block Universes
Jesse, I'm willing to accept the notion that time, like everything else is quantized at the finest scale, but even so I would maintain that everything is at one and only one point in time as the current state is continually recomputed into the next state.. However it seems to me this not just a simple sequence of information states being computed by programatic operators, but that the information that constitutes the current state of the universe must include information about how that information is changing. Not sure if that's clear. A lot more about it in my book where I explore the details of the information universe. Also the notion that the arrow of time has anything to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't make any sense at all. Entropy varies widely in the universe. If it had anything to do with the arrow of time we could expect time to flow differently in areas of different entropy and backwards in areas of decreasing entropy which it of course doesn't. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:01:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than when it was sent. And how does that prove that time flows in a non-block-timey sense? From a geometric point of view, it just means that if you have a v-shaped path through spacetime of a light signal that intersects my worldline at two different points, then those two events have different proper times on my clock (because naturally, *any* two distinct points on my worldline have distinct proper times). If you're just talking about the fact that the event of the signal being sent always happens at an earlier proper time than the event of it being received, that's ultimately a consequence of the thermodynamic arrow of time and the fact that the entropy of the universe is continually increasing from a low-entropy Big Bang--if the laws of physics are deterministic it would in principle be possible to set up a special set of initial conditions for an isolated system that would ensure entropy would decrease towards a future minimum rather than increase, and in such a system there would be time-reversed signal reception events that happened before time-reversed transmission events. Jesse On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between R1 and R2: Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of every twin. In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left. In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment with both the one to the right and to the left. Note that these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion. But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1 billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not require a same space location. Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with your terminology but not mine. Well, in my discussion I believe I alternated between two subtly different definitions--one which said the light-signal-return-time
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional. If so then right now your brain is not 100% functional because over the past year all of the material in it has been replaced. My brain of last year is no longer 100% functional, but my brain of this moment is. How can that be? How can your brain be 100% functional when you're using a brain replacement ? 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
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis Thanks for the link Chris. It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are involved in chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do communicate chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to, and influence, neurons. I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the information treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for consciousness, but I would not been astonished, that glial cells would be important for surviving some long period of time. (Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of making the substitution level lower, and this does not change the consequences.) I agree that it seems highly probable that most of the brain activities underlying the mind -- out of which we experience the spontaneously arising sense of self, the awareness of that self and all the other magnificent mysteries of consciousness -- are occurring primarily as phenomenon primarily rooted in the electro-chemical chirping, crackling activity occurring in our highly folded cortexual sheets and the hugely parallel neural/axonal networks. Though if indeed (as it appears) glial cells play a key role in cementing memories (and maybe in some chemically based manner perhaps even storing long term memories -- perhaps like an archival storage medium for (slow) chemically mediated recall mechanisms -- then, in fact, it would be impossible to describe the working of the brain/mind without factoring in and understanding their role(s). It seems to me that -- at least some large portion of -- the glial cells may play a role like the one I am conjecturing. Is the glial brain underlying the cortexual sheet is in fact a kind of chemical only -- and hence much slower by orders of magnitude -- processor that the brain/mind uses as a permanent archive for long term memories that adjacent populations of neurons use kind of like a hard drive or maybe an archival drive/tape backup? It certainly seems like these cells are playing some role; what if our brains have glial cell hard drives. I was not aware of the role these types of brain cells (comprising around 90% of the brains cells) also are somehow involved in mediating the experience of pain (what about other sensations and emotions?) -- that is interesting. In terms of information theory -- or comp in this case -- not all that much changes. It is more like an extension of the electro-chemical cortex and the operations it performs are chemically mediated and so are much slower than electrical switches. However I also agree that this would not qualitatively change the essential nature of the brain as a biological computer, albeit an incredibly complex and highly parallel one with vast numbers of neurons and even vaster numbers of vertices. Chris Bruno On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote: Liz – The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes everything we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the key role it now appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the formation of memories. Astrocytes account for around 90% of all brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow on ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge within vastly parallel networks as well), it is too early to put hard upper boundaries on capacity. If we are just now discovering previously overlooked critical actors for the formation of memories; do we even really know that much about the physical mechanisms for memory in the brain? This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly interested; I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale understanding of brain functioning is required in order to form a theory of consciousness, self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel we are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of gestalt moment when all the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic elegant theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand understanding of the brain/mind and of ourselves emerges. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:32 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis 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). On 6 February 2014 15:58, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: An aspect of my string cosmology is that the
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and I did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present moment of p-time as p-time continually happens). But as I've explained, p-time is that IN WHICH all computations of measurable quantities takes place, so it doesn't really have a metric in the sense that clock time does, because it is the logical computational locus of the origin of all metrics. Whenever you try to measure time you always end up measuring clock time, because you are always using some kind of clock to measure. Thus after the fact the same point in p-time can be established only in those situations where it is possible to establish CLOCK time simultaneities and thus back calculate. But even then we can say those clock time simultaneities occurred at the same point of p-time, but we can't assign a metric or number to that point. However observers can always confirm that they are in the same CURRENT present moment of p-time by the several operational definitions and thought experiments given... The fact that p-time has no metric does not imply it's metaphysical as you suggest. Consciousness does not have a metric either but no one would deny its existence. Like consciousness, the present moment is a direct empirical observation, like every observation of science is. And every observation of science requires both consciousness and a present moment to occur within. Both consciousness and the present moment are fundamental to all observation. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding? But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the same point of time Huh? Even if one accepts p-time, that operational definition still must be seen as a merely *approximate* way of defining the same point of p-time, not exact, just like with same point in space or same point in spacetime. If I bounce some light off you, surely you agree that the event of it reflecting off you occurred at a slightly earlier point in p-time that the event of reaching my eyes (or instruments)? Likewise if I feel our palms meet in a handshake, I don't actually begin to feel it until a slightly later moment of p-time than the moment our palms first made physical contact, and likewise for any shift or movement you might make with your hands. If you want to talk in a non-approximate way, all our experiences are slightly delayed impressions of events that occured in the past, regardless of whether we're talking about p-time or coordinate time. On this subject, could you address the question I asked in another post about whether you think there's any empirical way to determine whether two events in the past occurred at the same p-time, or whether the assumption of p-time simultaneity is a purely metaphysical one and that there's no way of knowing whether a specific pair of events we have records of actually happened simultaneously in p-time? and that same point in time is obviously not anything that relativity predicts, because no matter what set of coordinates you choose, relativity always gives 2 different real answers for the ages of the twins. I don't know what part of this you're not understanding, same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate, relativity doesn't deal with any absolute notion of simultaneity of distant events whatsoever. And relativity definitely does predict situations where clocks show different readings at the same coordinate time--do you deny this? Like I said earlier, there is a direct spatial analogy here that makes perfect sense if you don't assume p-time from the start. If two different measuring tapes cross, 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, wouldn't you say that the measuring tapes DO cross at the same point in space? Would the fact that the tapes themselves show two different readings at that point negate this? As for your last paragraph you seem to agree that both our operational definitions DO support the notion of a same present moment, just not that time flows. How do you figure? My last paragraph was just clarifying what I meant by arguments dependent on conscious
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have different time coordinates in their coordinate systems. That's the whole point of needing a separate present moment to account for that. You can't just arbitrarily set a new clock time for the meeting and ignore the actual clock time difference in ages When measuring tapes cross with different readings they do cross at the same point in space. When twins with different clock times meet they meet at the same point in time. It is NOT the same point in CLOCK time unless you redefine it as so by imposing another coordinate system on it that ignores the fact of the trip. But this is cheating because you ignore the real actual clock time difference of the ages which don't go away. Thus we have to say that the twins meet at the same point of p-time called the present moment, but not at the same actual point in clock time when you take the trip (which is the point of the whole thing) into consideration. The difference is that the tapes cross arbitrarily. The correct time analogy would be that the twins could start out with UNsynchronized clocks. They would still meet in the same present moment no matter what their clocks read depending on whether they were originally synchronized or not. But the fact that is not addressed by your tape analogy is that however the clocks are originally set one twin is actually 30 and the other actually 40. Doesn't matter in the least how their clocks were originally set. The clock readings are arbitrary depending on how they were originally set, just like the crossing point of the two tapes. But the difference is ages is real and absolute. Define the coordinate systems however you like, that age difference doesn't change So your tape analogy doesn't address the problem. Only a common present moment does. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Well you just avoid most of my points and logic. Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding? But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the same point of time Huh? Even if one accepts p-time, that operational definition still must be seen as a merely *approximate* way of defining the same point of p-time, not exact, just like with same point in space or same point in spacetime. If I bounce some light off you, surely you agree that the event of it reflecting off you occurred at a slightly earlier point in p-time that the event of reaching my eyes (or instruments)? Likewise if I feel our palms meet in a handshake, I don't actually begin to feel it until a slightly later moment of p-time than the moment our palms first made physical contact, and likewise for any shift or movement you might make with your hands. If you want to talk in a non-approximate way, all our experiences are slightly delayed impressions of events that occured in the past, regardless of whether we're talking about p-time or coordinate time. On this subject, could you address the question I asked in another post about whether you think there's any empirical way to determine whether two events in the past occurred at the same p-time, or whether the assumption of p-time simultaneity is a purely metaphysical one and that there's no way of knowing whether a specific pair of events we have records of actually happened simultaneously in p-time? and that same point in time is obviously not anything that relativity predicts, because no matter what set of coordinates you choose, relativity always gives 2 different real answers for the ages of the twins. I don't know what part of this you're not understanding, same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate, relativity doesn't deal with any absolute notion of simultaneity of distant events whatsoever. And relativity definitely does predict situations where clocks show different readings at the same coordinate time--do you deny this? Like I said earlier, there is a direct spatial analogy here that makes perfect sense if you don't assume p-time from the start. If two different measuring tapes cross, 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, wouldn't you say that the measuring tapes DO cross at the
Re: A theory of dark matter...
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:36:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult questions, Take this example: Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever. Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B agree on that. This is because A is deeper in earth's gravity than B is. Brent says more proper time nearer Earth. So how could geometry possibly explain this effect since there is NO relative motion in space, therefore no STc effect. Brent previously told us that everything is geometry and acceleration does NOT slow time. But isn't this entirely an acceleration effect, that A's 1g gravitational acceleration is greater than B's centrifugal acceleration, so that A's clock slows relative to B's? What is your analysis of exactly how this comes about in detail. What's the proper way to analyze this case? Is there a geometric analysis? Is there an Epstein diagram? Hi Edgar, it's been a few days since I've been on this thread and since no one else has answered you I'll have a go, though bearing in mind relativity is not a strong suite - there's no relative movement, but the item on earth is moving a hell of a lot slower - Relativity says gravity is not a force but explained by the geometry of spacetime. So the fact the item is on the surface doesn't seem to change that there's a geometric explanation for why it doesn't fly off at 1000mph -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. OK, and note I am trying on your idea in the very way I am also questioning it. So the question is, allowing there could be a 1:1 matching of moments, is the idea meaningful if people in one galaxy have a big enough moment to think some thought like people in that galaxy right now... whereas the people in that other galaxy experience the same moment as 3 years or as 4 microseconds. In what meaningful sense is that a shared moment? Given the real time - and we are talking about time - is experienced totally differently. Why aren't the realities of time and how it is completely different, more fundamental than some since that it would be possible if we had all the data to do some 1:1 correlation such that everything could be related via a p-time. Again, note that I am questioning your idea, from within supposing your idea is true. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Friday, February 7, 2014 9:55:02 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. OK, and note I am trying on your idea in the very way I am also questioning it. So the question is, allowing there could be a 1:1 matching of moments, is the idea meaningful if people in one galaxy have a big enough moment to think some thought like people in that galaxy right now... whereas the people in that other galaxy experience the same moment as 3 years or as 4 microseconds. In what meaningful sense is that a shared moment? Given the real time - and we are talking about time - is experienced totally differently. Why aren't the realities of time and how it is completely different, more fundamental than some since that it would be possible if we had all the data to do some 1:1 correlation such that everything could be related via a p-time. Again, note that I am questioning your idea, from within supposing your idea is true. And, again from within supposing p-time is true, why is the present moment the twins come back to fundamental, when that particular shared moment actually isn't, because if one or both twins changed their speeds they'd both experience a completely different meeting time respectively. And they wouldn't necessarily meet in a p-time. Not if one of them went really fast, because the other one would get old and die waiting for his twin, through millions of p-moments. Whereas the fast moving one would feel like it'd been a month. So does the fact they would meet back as A p-moment GIVEN a particular relative speed? I mean, there's nothing special about the fact they both return to the same PLACE. And nothing special about the time they do or do not coincide at. So how does this twin thing support p-time exactly? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
Ghibbsa, I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that hell of a lot faster motion relative too, and why do we choose that frame as the correct/absolute one? Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:42:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:36:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult questions, Take this example: Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever. Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B agree on that. This is because A is deeper in earth's gravity than B is. Brent says more proper time nearer Earth. So how could geometry possibly explain this effect since there is NO relative motion in space, therefore no STc effect. Brent previously told us that everything is geometry and acceleration does NOT slow time. But isn't this entirely an acceleration effect, that A's 1g gravitational acceleration is greater than B's centrifugal acceleration, so that A's clock slows relative to B's? What is your analysis of exactly how this comes about in detail. What's the proper way to analyze this case? Is there a geometric analysis? Is there an Epstein diagram? Hi Edgar, it's been a few days since I've been on this thread and since no one else has answered you I'll have a go, though bearing in mind relativity is not a strong suite - there's no relative movement, but the item on earth is moving a hell of a lot slower - Relativity says gravity is not a force but explained by the geometry of spacetime. So the fact the item is on the surface doesn't seem to change that there's a geometric explanation for why it doesn't fly off at 1000mph -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that hell of a lot faster motion relative too, and why do we choose that frame as the correct/absolute one? Edgar My concern is that your questions are going beyond my personal knowledge of relativity which isn't much. But, at risk of not addressing the distinctiveness of what you have just said to me (if I don't then apologies), I could try restating what I just said, but slightly differently. - gravity is geometric - two objects at different distances from a massive body, in geosychronous orbit relative to eachother, are not the same frame in relativity, because one is moving faster relative to the speed of the other. Because that's the only way to get geosynchronous situation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Biology, Buddha and the irreflexive Multiverse (was Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)
On 2/7/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote: 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, OK. Nice. but alpha is not accessible from alpha OK. and A is not true in any other world accessible from alpha. OK. Does it follow that A is not true in alpha? Yes. That does follow. How frustrating! A is true, but not possible. How could that makes sense? Well, this does not make sense ... in the Leibnizian multiverse. For sure. I don't see the point allowing that worlds may not be accesible from themselves? Does that have some application? Yes. First you prove to everybody that I can see in the future, as I announced yesterday the discovery of a Kripke multiverse violating the law []A - A. You just did. Well, in alpha, to be sure, []A - A is true (OK?), but []~A - ~A is falsified, as []~A is true (~A is true in all accessible world from alpha), and ~A is false in alpha, as A is true is true in alpha, and worlds obeys CPL). That amounts to the same, as the laws do not depend on the valuation. If []A - A is a law, []~A - ~A should follow. Note that []~A - ~A, is equivalent with (contraposition, double negation): ~~A - ~[]~A = A - A A - A is the dual formulation of []A - A. As law, they are equivalent. But as formula in one world, they can oppose to each other. So you did find a Kripke multiverse violating the *law* []A - A. And you did find the culprit: those bizarre world which does not access to themselves. Does that have some application? Yes. 1) An easy one, which plays some role in what I like to call the /simplest buddhist theory of life ever/! And that theory is a subtheory of G, and so will stay with us. That theory models life by worlds accessibility. To be alive at alpha means that t is true in alpha. It means that there is, at least, one world accessible from alpha. To die at alpha means that t is false in alpha. But t is true in alpha, as t is true in all worlds, so the only way to have t false, is that there are no accessible worlds from alpha, at all, including itself. That makes alpha into a cul-de-sac world. So in Kripke semantics, ~t, or equivalently []f, characterizes the cul-de-sac world. Then the /simplest buddhist theory of life ever/ is just the statement, If you are alive, then you can die. It means that for all worlds alpha where you are alive (t is true), you can access to a cul-de-sac world. It means that everywhere, in all worlds we t - []f, or equivalently t - ~[]t. 2) If you interpret t by intelligent, and []f by stupid, you get with the same multiverse, my general theory of intelligence and stupidity. 3) if you interpret [] by provability (in PA, or in ZF), again, t - ~[]t is a law. Read: if I am consistent, then I can't prove that I am consistent. It is easy to see that the law t - ~[]t is a direct consequence of the formula of Löb []([]A - A) - []A. Just put t in place of A, and keep in mind that A - f is just ~A, and then contra-pose: []([]A - A) - []A []([]f - f) - []f [](~[]f) - []f ~[]f - ~[](~[]f) t - ~[]t The worlds in the Kripke mutiverse characterizing G are like that, they don't access to themselves. []A- A is not an arithmetical law from the 3p self-referential view of the machine, but that is why the Theaetetus idea is applicable and will give the non trivial S4Grz for the knower, or first person, fro which []A - A is indispensable. Some might be astonished that []f is true in a cul-de-sac world. But kripe semantics say that []f is true in alpha then f is true in all accessible worlds from alpha. This really means (for all beta): (alpha R beta) - (beta satisfy f). But (alpha R beta) is always false, and (beta satisfy f) is always false, so (alpha R beta) - (beta satisfy f). OK? Dunno. I'll have to think about it. One thing I find puzzling is that accessible seems ill defined. I have an intuitive grasp of what possible and necessary mean. And I know what provable means. But my intuitive idea of accessible say every world should be accessible from itself. Logic is about formal relations of sentences so I understand that accessible will have different applications, but what are some examples? Is Robinson arithmetic accessible from Peano? Is ZFC accessible from arithmetic? Brent -- You
Re: Block Universes
Ghibbsa, It's a good approach to question a theory from within after assuming it's true... More people here should try that! The answer to your excellent question is that present moments in p-time don't have significant durations, and I agree if they did, then they might have to have different durations in different relativistic situations, but they don't. Though the present moment seems to have a few seconds duration to us, that's actually an illusion of short term memory as I explain in my book in the section on Mind and Reality. The actual computational duration of the present moment is just what is necessary for the next state of quantum events to be calculated which is far below human perception, and far below the duration of most quantum events. On the scale of what people misleadingly call Planck time. It's just a single processor cycle of p-time. In comparison, mind expands its simulation of a present moment into several seconds duration. It is only this little trick of mind that allows (memories of) seemingly simultaneous events to be compared, put into relationships, and thus made any sense of at all. For example without this little mental trick music would just be instantaneous different sounds rather than music, because music depends on the temporal relationships of those sounds. They are seemingly compared in the present moment, but actually only memories are being compared. So the current state of the universe is computed both here and on Andromeda in the same 'Planck-like' instant of p-time, but the resulting clock time rates that are calculated depend on the whole complex of local information computations so as to make relativity come out correctly. Hope that's reasonably clear.. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. OK, and note I am trying on your idea in the very way I am also questioning it. So the question is, allowing there could be a 1:1 matching of moments, is the idea meaningful if people in one galaxy have a big enough moment to think some thought like people in that galaxy right now... whereas the people in that other galaxy experience the same moment as 3 years or as 4 microseconds. In what meaningful sense is that a shared moment? Given the real time - and we are talking about time - is experienced totally differently. Why aren't the realities of time and how it is completely different, more fundamental than some since that it would be possible if we had all the data to do some 1:1 correlation such that everything could be related via a p-time. Again, note that I am questioning your idea, from within supposing your idea is true. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 2/7/2014 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 22:49, LizR wrote: Hawking gets the attention because he has ALS. It's not a tradeoff many would want to make. He might get attention also because he is a star in the field (rather well deserve for its accomplishment). Of course it is good for him, and possibly sad for some other scientists, which might do good work but be ignored. History of science is full of misattributions of all kind. It is not really important for the ideas, but of course it can be important for the more peculiar steak, moral, fundings, etc. I haven't studied it enough to be sure but a quick skim gives me the impression that Mitra's eternally collapsing object assumes some impossible properties of the stress-energy and that's why it can violate the Hawking-Penrose theorem. Conceivably those properties might be implied by quantum gravity, but that's rather different from just postulating them. 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
Ghibbsa, I'm not sure I understand the point of your question. Both twins are alway in their own present moments, and when they meet they always find that they were always in the SAME present moment because they are in the same present moment whenEVER they meet and no matter WHERE they meet. So it doesn't have to be at one particular place or time on anybody's clock. Of course if one dies, he no longer is aware of his present moment, but the watch on his dead hand still ticks away at whatever relativistic rate it has to in the same present moment as his living twin is in. The living twin meets up with his dead twin in the same present moment. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:01:26 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:55:02 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. OK, and note I am trying on your idea in the very way I am also questioning it. So the question is, allowing there could be a 1:1 matching of moments, is the idea meaningful if people in one galaxy have a big enough moment to think some thought like people in that galaxy right now... whereas the people in that other galaxy experience the same moment as 3 years or as 4 microseconds. In what meaningful sense is that a shared moment? Given the real time - and we are talking about time - is experienced totally differently. Why aren't the realities of time and how it is completely different, more fundamental than some since that it would be possible if we had all the data to do some 1:1 correlation such that everything could be related via a p-time. Again, note that I am questioning your idea, from within supposing your idea is true. And, again from within supposing p-time is true, why is the present moment the twins come back to fundamental, when that particular shared moment actually isn't, because if one or both twins changed their speeds they'd both experience a completely different meeting time respectively. And they wouldn't necessarily meet in a p-time. Not if one of them went really fast, because the other one would get old and die waiting for his twin, through millions of p-moments. Whereas the fast moving one would feel like it'd been a month. So does the fact they would meet back as A p-moment GIVEN a particular relative speed? I mean, there's nothing special about the fact they both return to the same PLACE. And nothing special about the time they do or do not coincide at. So how does this twin thing support p-time exactly? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. 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: A theory of dark matter...
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:37:17 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? i.e. because one is visualizing what are actually two relative frames, effectively as a combined situation. the intuitive - and fragile for that as ever - the intuitive answer would be it depends what you want to do. If you just want to say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we always said that about the earth and the sun, the only difference that now we intuit by looking at the geometry of a combined spacetime. The intuitive answer would be yes you can do that no less from intuition of the geometry of spacetime than intuition of looking at a schematic of the solar system, or the Euclidean geometry of space Does relativity say that fundamental is actually the level of frames, and talking about combining frames for intuition just does not wash any more. I guess that's it in a nutshell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
Ghibbsa, Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose one frame over the other to get the correct results. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:17:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that hell of a lot faster motion relative too, and why do we choose that frame as the correct/absolute one? Edgar My concern is that your questions are going beyond my personal knowledge of relativity which isn't much. But, at risk of not addressing the distinctiveness of what you have just said to me (if I don't then apologies), I could try restating what I just said, but slightly differently. - gravity is geometric - two objects at different distances from a massive body, in geosychronous orbit relative to eachother, are not the same frame in relativity, because one is moving faster relative to the speed of the other. Because that's the only way to get geosynchronous situation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had the gall to anyway. It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I chose the wrong words to search for (like distorting mirror, cylindrical mirror, round mirror, and suchlike). I think things get interesting inside a cylindrical mirror once you look from a position against one side towards the opposite wall. Symmetry tells me the image won't be inverted, but I'm guessing it's right-left reflected, and ... what else? (All I need is a bendy mirror, and I could find out for myself!) On 8 February 2014 12:06, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: To Brent and LizR: Brent, I would not suspect YOU to write the Genitive your as you're. Not in a millennium. Liz: after having your Gallbladder removed you still have the gall to ask such questions? (and please, fellow 'savants', do not substitute a perfect round cylinder with a zillion straight mirrors placed together to mimick a round circumference. Round is round). JM On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Upon reflection
Aha. http://www.distortingmirrors.co.uk/index.php/types-shapes.html So the answer is that you look fatter when you stand close (I assume inside the focal length). But it doesn't say what happens when you look from further away than the focal length... PS I hope this topic isn't too boring. I must admit I was expecting Brent to answer with diagrams (hopefully not of what I can do with my questions !) On 8 February 2014 12:32, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had the gall to anyway. It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I chose the wrong words to search for (like distorting mirror, cylindrical mirror, round mirror, and suchlike). I think things get interesting inside a cylindrical mirror once you look from a position against one side towards the opposite wall. Symmetry tells me the image won't be inverted, but I'm guessing it's right-left reflected, and ... what else? (All I need is a bendy mirror, and I could find out for myself!) On 8 February 2014 12:06, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: To Brent and LizR: Brent, I would not suspect YOU to write the Genitive your as you're. Not in a millennium. Liz: after having your Gallbladder removed you still have the gall to ask such questions? (and please, fellow 'savants', do not substitute a perfect round cylinder with a zillion straight mirrors placed together to mimick a round circumference. Round is round). JM On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Real science versus interpretations of science
On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:36:21 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@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 yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do say I am to be thanked as well and more so, but on the other hand you send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your eyes. One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to really that much of fuckat least for that to matter whether or not something is a good post. What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a snob p.s. don't worry I forgive you p.p.s. tee hee Not especially addressing you here PGC but I had to reply to something to keep it in this thread. So something I asserted was that I had tried to study Bruno's structure with as little direct knowledge of the contents as possible. Between this thread and another where I addressed Bruno directly I actually said his was the best structure I'd personally seen, or at the top table. I think that in my choice of wording I definitely acknowledged that my judgements could be totally vacuous in some hard light of reality. But that's almost a given for all of us. So the question is whether, within my own mind, I was passing a measured compliment, or was I gushing, and if so falling foul of part of the complaint I was making to Edgar (the other part was that he had no right to rope me into a complaint about other people that I might not agree with). That's a legitimate question, particularly as yet another part of my complaint to Edgar was that he throwing out a standard that he hadn't yet shown himself living up to, since almost all his interactions are about his ideas, and almost all interactions to him are people granting him their time, despite in many cases it being pretty apparent the personal opinion of the individual was that there wasn't any mileage in his ideas. So legitimate here in terms of whether I was applying a standard that I had at least been trying to live up to previously. Another question is whether it is even possible to study a structure without understanding the contents. So for that reason I will briefly lay down Bruno's structure as I see it. And to the extent it's completely wrong, then I guess that goes a long way to answering the question above. And to
Re: Block Universes
Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. OK, and note I am trying on your idea in the very way I am also questioning it. So the question is, allowing there could be a 1:1 matching of moments, is the idea meaningful if people in one galaxy have a big enough moment to think some thought like people in that galaxy right now... whereas the people in that other galaxy experience the same moment as 3 years or as 4 microseconds. In what meaningful sense is that a shared moment? Given the real time - and we are talking about time - is experienced totally differently. Why aren't the realities of time and how it is completely different, more fundamental than some since that it would be possible if we had all the data to do some 1:1 correlation such that everything could be related via a p-time. Again, note that I am questioning your idea, from within supposing your idea is true. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Liz, You can buy flexible sheets of reflective plastic. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:32:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had the gall to anyway. It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I chose the wrong words to search for (like distorting mirror, cylindrical mirror, round mirror, and suchlike). I think things get interesting inside a cylindrical mirror once you look from a position against one side towards the opposite wall. Symmetry tells me the image won't be inverted, but I'm guessing it's right-left reflected, and ... what else? (All I need is a bendy mirror, and I could find out for myself!) On 8 February 2014 12:06, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: To Brent and LizR: Brent, I would not suspect YOU to write the Genitive your as you're. Not in a millennium. Liz: after having your Gallbladder removed you still have the gall to ask such questions? (and please, fellow 'savants', do not substitute a perfect round cylinder with a zillion straight mirrors placed together to mimick a round circumference. Round is round). JM On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On 7 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: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-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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: R there 2 Max Tegmarks'? Was: Max Tegmark retires Infinity at Edge Question
On 8 February 2014 06:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:35:07 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: 2 Maxes? Hmm. Can't be bad. Maybe he has an evil twin! (or maybe this is an unexpected result of that quantum suicide experiment he talked about a few years back...) I actually emailed him for clarification where he stood. No response as of yet...possibly no response likely. I got an answer from him when I asked about something a while back, so I assume he's prepared to clarify. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? -- 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 8 February 2014 01:57, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this issue that I promised: A few points: 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and compare watches. That is the operation definition. That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational definition with which I have no problem. 2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes minimal time to return. Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as well. 3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the (same) present moment. Call that relationship R2. That was what people thought before relativity, but now know to be wrong. Nothing to see here, move along... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Brent, Sure, I understand this and AGREE with it. It's just standard relativity theory. But it's a description of CLOCK time simultaneity, It does NOT say anything about being in a present moment of p-time. Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 10:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than when it was sent. And how does that prove that time flows in a non-block-timey sense? From a geometric point of view, it just means that if you have a v-shaped path through spacetime of a light signal that intersects my worldline at two different points, then those two events have different proper times on my clock (because naturally, *any* two distinct points on my worldline have distinct proper times). If you're just talking about the fact that the event of the signal being sent always happens at an earlier proper time than the event of it being received, that's ultimately a consequence of the thermodynamic arrow of time and the fact that the entropy of the universe is continually increasing from a low-entropy Big Bang--if the laws of physics are deterministic it would in principle be possible to set up a special set of initial conditions for an isolated system that would ensure entropy would decrease towards a future minimum rather than increase, and in such a system there would be time-reversed signal reception events that happened before time-reversed transmission events. I think Jesse is doing about as good of job of explaining SR as can be done in just words, but I'm starting to feel sorry for him. So here's some diagrams illustrating the relativity of simultaneity. Here's a stationary observer, SO, (i.e. any observer in his own inertial frame) and he send out two light pulses, one to the right and one to the left, at time 0. They bounce off reflectors which happen to be at locations 5 units left and 5 units right of his position. He sees the reflected flash from the left and from the right at the same time t=10. Since he got both returns at the same time he knows that the reflections happened at the same time, namely t=5 (assuming only that the speed of light is the same in both directions - notice this wouldn't be true for a sound reflection in the presence of wind). So the two reflection events are simultaneous at different locations, according the first, stationary observer. But now consider a rightward moving observer that happens to pass the stationary observe just as he emits the two light pulses. The rightward observer, RO, also sees the pulses, but he sees the red return on the right after 7.4 ticks of his clock and so he concludes that the reflection event happened at t'=3.7 where t' is his clock time also starting from where SO and RO passed. And RO sees the yellow return flash at t'=13.6, so he concludes that the left reflection event happened at t'=6.8. Not at all simultaneous with the right event. So who's right? The answer is neither (or both). Since the speed of light is the same in all frames, we can just as well plot what happened the the RO frame and it looks like this. Notice that all the same obersvations are true. The SO still sees both returns at the same time t=0 and still concludes they are simulatneous and were 5 units away. The RO still sees the returns at t'=7.4 and t'=13.6 and he concludes the events were 3.7 and 6.8 units away respectively. So simultaneous at different locations is meaningless. 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: Unput and Onput
On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote: 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?) Ys, but that is why it is meaningfull to say that we derive physics from zero physical assumption. We derive physics from TU, which is defined in pure arithmetic, and has indeed no relation at all with physics *in his definition*. It involves only 0, successor, and the * and + laws, nothing else. Of course arithmetic and TU has something to do with physics, *at some level*, assuming comp, and well, in the psychology or theology of the TUs, which is itself derived from arithmetical self-reference. But this means that physics has some plausible relation with the UT. The UT itself, at his definition level, is a purely arithmetical notion. OK? Yes, of course. I was getting the cart before the horse, as they say. TU has nothing to do with physics but physics may have something to do with TU. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Friday, February 7, 2014 7:33:28 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote: 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?) Ys, but that is why it is meaningfull to say that we derive physics from zero physical assumption. We derive physics from TU, which is defined in pure arithmetic, and has indeed no relation at all with physics *in his definition*. It involves only 0, successor, and the * and + laws, nothing else. Of course arithmetic and TU has something to do with physics, *at some level*, assuming comp, and well, in the psychology or theology of the TUs, which is itself derived from arithmetical self-reference. But this means that physics has some plausible relation with the UT. The UT itself, at his definition level, is a purely arithmetical notion. OK? Yes, of course. I was getting the cart before the horse, as they say. TU has nothing to do with physics but physics may have something to do with TU. How do you know it has nothing to do with physics? It seems clear to me that the behaviors of integers, memory, etc. are rooted in familiarity with a particular macroscopic physics. Building a Turing machine only out of emotions or fog or empty space is not possible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes My friend Bill Jefferys who used to teach astronomy at Univ of Texas says it doesn't matter what reference frame you choose as far as the physical events go, it just makes the math harder or easier. So sometimes you use a geocentric frame and sometimes a heliocentric frame and so forth... 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 Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and I did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present moment of p-time as p-time continually happens). That's a complete non-answer. I guess you are *defining* everything to mean everything which actually exists in my presentist ontology, i.e. only things as they are right now. But my question was specifically about *past* events, and it doesn't depend at all on the assumption that past events exist, only that there is an objective truth about them. Do you believe there is an objective truth about whether astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, or about whether all life was created in seven days or evolved over millions of years? If your answer is yes, then what I'm asking is whether, among the objective truths about past events, there is an objective truth about WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE ANOTHER. Yes or no? Please give a clear answer to this question. And if the answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think there is any way to determine empirically the truth about whether two past events happened at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to all beings within our universe (if the latter, that's what I mean by 'metaphysical'). But as I've explained, p-time is that IN WHICH all computations of measurable quantities takes place, so it doesn't really have a metric in the sense that clock time does, because it is the logical computational locus of the origin of all metrics. I have no idea what you mean by metric here, which in mathematics refers to a function that defines some notion of distance along paths in a manifold (which can include proper time if the manifold in question is relativistic spacetime). Again, please just tell me yes or no if you think there's an objective truth about whether past events happened at the same time as one another, no technical ideas like metrics are necessary to answer this question. 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
Russell, Some good questions! Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite. A lot of people claim that data suggests the universe is flat, but the data does not actually suggest that. What the data suggests is only that the universe is very LARGE, i.e. that the curvature, if any, is very slight. Also note that for the universe to actually be flat Omega must be EXACTLY=1 to enormous precision. While if it varies from 1 in only the umpteenth digit it is not actually flat, just very large. The statistical likelihood of a number near to 1 being exactly 1 rather than the near infinite other values it could have is incredibly low. So there is no real indication that the universe is actually flat, only that whatever curvature it has is slight. Another good example of how otherwise intelligent scientists often misinterpret their own data! My theory does NOT assume an embedding dimension. The 4-dimensional hypersphere is the whole shebang Since my universe is hyperspherical with p-time the radial dimension, the passage of p-time is what 'inflates' the cosmic balloon, whose surface is the current universe, and thus what produces the current value of the curvature of space and causes the Hubble expansion. However this has to be understood very carefully because the p-time radius is NOT measurable by the clock time age of the universe. In fact the theory suggests that events such as the BB inflation can be explained by large discrepancies in clock time and p-time rates during that period. I can get into this further if you like Edgar On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:26:29 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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: Upon reflection
On 2/7/2014 3:32 PM, LizR wrote: I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had the gall to anyway. It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I chose the wrong words to search for (like distorting mirror, cylindrical mirror, round mirror, and suchlike). Anamorphic is the word you're looking for. Brent I think things get interesting inside a cylindrical mirror once you look from a position against one side towards the opposite wall. Symmetry tells me the image won't be inverted, but I'm guessing it's right-left reflected, and ... what else? (All I need is a bendy mirror, and I could find out for myself!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose one frame over the other to get the correct results. Edgar I see what you are asking, or think so. But unfortunately it goes beyond what I feel able to answerat least in terms of relativity. I am having a go at contributing one way or another on various threads. And I've got my own intuition of course. But a conclusive answer I do not have. On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:17:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that hell of a lot faster motion relative too, and why do we choose that frame as the correct/absolute one? Edgar My concern is that your questions are going beyond my personal knowledge of relativity which isn't much. But, at risk of not addressing the distinctiveness of what you have just said to me (if I don't then apologies), I could try restating what I just said, but slightly differently. - gravity is geometric - two objects at different distances from a massive body, in geosychronous orbit relative to eachother, are not the same frame in relativity, because one is moving faster relative to the speed of the other. Because that's the only way to get geosynchronous situation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose one frame over the other to get the correct results. You don't. But in almost all cases there is a frame in which it is easy to apply the equations, one that takes advantage of symmetries and leaves out negligible effects. So you do the analysis is that frame and then you transform the answer if necessary to some other frame of interest. But in general what you're interested in is frame independent: Did the spaceship rendezvous with the planet or miss it? Did the tank fall in the pit or not? To do the transformation you have to know how things transform, which for inertial frames in flat spacetime is by Lorentz transformations, i.e. those that leave lightcones invariant. 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 Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have different time coordinates in their coordinate systems. Huh? No they don't. If a given pair of events A and B have exactly the same coordinates (both space and time coordinates) as one another in one coordinate system, then A and B must have the same coordinates as one another in EVERY coordinate system. Of course the actual value of the shared time coordinate will differ from one coordinate system to another (since this depends on things like where you arbitrarily set the origin of your coordinate system), but in every coordinate system the time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no), or are you just pointing out that the shared time-coordinate is different in different systems, or that the shared time-coordinate will not match the clock time for both of them? Incidentally, to speak of their coordinate systems is ambiguous since they are not both inertial. Although physicists sometimes refer to the inertial rest frame of an observer as their own frame or similar words (though even this is purely a matter of convention, nothing stops a given observer from assigning coordinates to events using a coordinate system in which they are *not* at rest), there is no standard way to construct a coordinate system for a non-inertial observers, there are an infinite number of different coordinate systems they could use (even if you restrict them to using a coordinate system where they remain at a constant position coordinate, and where the time coordinate matches their own proper time). That's the whole point of needing a separate present moment to account for that. You can't just arbitrarily set a new clock time for the meeting and ignore the actual clock time difference in ages The *definition* of same time in relativity depends only on the coordinate time, not the clock time of any particular clock which is not a coordinate clock. So given this definition, yes you can ignore their own clock times, because it isn't relevant. If your point is just I don't like this definition because it's different from how I would prefer to define things that's fine, but you can't claim that this way of speaking is ill-defined or *internally* contradictory. When measuring tapes cross with different readings they do cross at the same point in space. Yes, and that means if the point where they cross is the 30-cm mark on tape #1 and the 40-cm mark on tape #2, then no matter what x-y coordinate system you use to label different points on the surface where the tapes are laid out, the 30-cm mark of tape #1 will have the same y-coordinate as the 40-cm mark of tape #2 (and likewise for the x-coordinate). When twins with different clock times meet they meet at the same point in time. Yes, and that means that if twin #1 is turning 30 at the point in spacetime where they meet, and twin #2 is turning 40 at that point, then no matter what x-y-z-t coordinate system you use to label different points in spacetime, the event of twin #1 turning 30 will have the same t-coordinate as the event of twin #2 turning 40 (and likewise for the spatial coordinates x,y,z). It is NOT the same point in CLOCK time unless you redefine it as so by imposing another coordinate system on it that ignores the fact of the trip. That's like saying the point where the tapes cross is NOT the same point in MEASURING TAPE space unless you redefine it as so by imposing another coordinate system on it that ignores the fact of their paths in space. But this is cheating because you ignore the real actual clock time difference of the ages which don't go away. That's like saying but this is cheating because you ignore the real actual measuring-tape difference of the position-markers which don't go away. The difference is that the tapes cross arbitrarily. What makes their crossing arbitrary? To flesh this out a bit, I'm imagining flexible cloth measuring tapes that can be used to measure length along curving paths, not just straight-line ones. And I'm imagining that they actually crossed once before, then took different paths to their second crossing-point. At the first point where they cross, let's imagine that both tapes have exactly the *same* marking at that point, and after that they follow different paths until their paths cross again. This corresponds to the fact that both twins have the same age at the common point in spacetime that their paths diverge from, and then different ages at the next common point in spacetime where they unite. The correct time analogy would be that the twins could start out with UNsynchronized clocks. Not with the
Re: Block Universes
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. If you can assign a speed to the expansion of the hypothetical hypersphere, then you have assumed an external space-time in which it is expanding, so that speed means something (distance/time). So you are assuming an extra 5D space-time in order to have something in which the 4D universe is expanding, including a time dimension... How is this prior to dimensionality? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
I *think* I want the opposite of anamorphic - for example, this is an example of anamorphism: [image: Inline images 1] What I want is the view from *inside* the cylinder. On 8 February 2014 13:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2014 3:32 PM, LizR wrote: I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had the gall to anyway. It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I chose the wrong words to search for (like distorting mirror, cylindrical mirror, round mirror, and suchlike). Anamorphic is the word you're looking for. Brent I think things get interesting inside a cylindrical mirror once you look from a position against one side towards the opposite wall. Symmetry tells me the image won't be inverted, but I'm guessing it's right-left reflected, and ... what else? (All I need is a bendy mirror, and I could find out for myself!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes My friend Bill Jefferys who used to teach astronomy at Univ of Texas says it doesn't matter what reference frame you choose as far as the physical events go, it just makes the math harder or easier. So sometimes you use a geocentric frame and sometimes a heliocentric frame and so forth... Brent but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, save that reality does imply such a reality is really there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:43:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes My friend Bill Jefferys who used to teach astronomy at Univ of Texas says it doesn't matter what reference frame you choose as far as the physical events go, it just makes the math harder or easier. So sometimes you use a geocentric frame and sometimes a heliocentric frame and so forth... Brent but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, save that reality does imply such a reality is really there. sentence in red should read save that RELATIVITY does imply such a reality is really there -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
On 8 February 2014 15:45, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, save that relativity does imply such a reality is really there. But does relativity imply that? I don't think Einstein thought so, since he was taken with the ideas of Ernst Mach, in which there isn't an absolute landscape. But I'm told that general relativity doesn't obey Mach's principle, so perhaps it does imply it. (Certainly quantum gravity theories that try to make something different of space-time at the fundamental level seem to me to imply that there is an absolute framework involved... but I have been known to be wrong :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes My friend Bill Jefferys who used to teach astronomy at Univ of Texas says it doesn't matter what reference frame you choose as far as the physical events go, it just makes the math harder or easier. So sometimes you use a geocentric frame and sometimes a heliocentric frame and so forth... Brent but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, save that reality does imply such a reality is really there. True. Although this absolute landscape would look different according to one's perspective (position, motion, etc) it hopefully represents the intersubjective agreement of all possible observers. If you express this landscape only in terms of invariants, not coordinates and not relative to a particular observer or frame, then you could call it absolute, but as you note that tends to be a messy representation to work with, so we tend to use some particular representation; the same way we navigate with flat map projections instead of charting courses on globes. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they are not? Ways -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they are not? Ways p.s. it's clear that between any arbitrarily chosen pair of bits of energy there's a whole universe of ways to be different relative to one another. But assuming there is a sense the universe has a single age in some sense that is true, and that that then looks like a wafer thin symmetrical bubble the big bang at the centre, then it seems reasonable that all such differences cancel out when the whole bubble is taken together. Therefore being no different than any more conventional definition of a frame in that sense at least. Is there some extra sense, then, that doesn't reasonably cancel out, that this isn't by whatever gross stretch, a frame, or some reasonable metaphor for a parallel? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 8 February 2014 17:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? I don't think so. Massive objects will have experienced gravitational time dilation relative to gas-filled voids, for example. A neutron star formed early in the history of the universe will be rather younger (in terms of time since the big bang) than the Earth, for example. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: A theory of dark matter...
One could consider the rest frame of the CMBR as an absolute landscape I suppose. One over which the Earth is hurtling at some rate, iirc. On 8 February 2014 16:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth being gravitationally dominated by the sun not the other way around. So the question was whether one could just consider the Sun, calculate the spacetime metric due to its mass, and then calculate the orbit of the Earth as an inertial path in that metric? In that case of course the answer is no. The metric has to take into account the mass of the Earth as well as the Sun. Just as in Newtonian theory, the Sun and the Earth, and Jupiter and the other planets all move around their mutual center-of-mass. The center-of-mass is roughly near the surface of the Sun on the side nearest Jupiter. Brent Hi Brent - Sure, but is it ok to look at the sun and the earth together, purely as their geometry's in spacetime, and say that one goes around that one to the same sort of accuracy we can say the earth goes around the sun without invoking relativity. Or is doing that running foul of the basic principles in play of relativity ? I'm not sure what you're asking. The corrections to a simple stationary Sun, orbiting Earth due to Jupiter are much bigger than any GR effect. Brent if you're willing to keep trying I would also like to...but please be assured I will understand anytime you no longer want to. So trying again here, I would first recap one sense of what this has been about - I related an experience I had a few years back, when some people much more knowledgeable than I in relativity...at least factually speaking...argued that relativity was a fundamentally different way of explaining the universe (with no dispute from me so far)such that, you literally could not sensibly talk about frame-free visualizations. I responded that I thought that was only true up to a point, because for example, the spacetime geometry of a much larger and much smaller object, could be visualized as a single landscape for the purpose of saying something very general, like that one goes around that one. Which they explicitly then ruled out. Of course, this statement was always untrue strictly speaking because both go round a common centre of mass. But the question here, is: - was that more knowledgeable source correct - was I correct - was one but not the other exclusively correct, if so which one - was there a good chance neither were correct, and you'd have to see what was actually said to be sure - Is what I am saying to you now, which I think is a fairly good capture of what I said then, correct .so far as it goes My friend Bill Jefferys who used to teach astronomy at Univ of Texas says it doesn't matter what reference frame you choose as far as the physical events go, it just makes the math harder or easier. So sometimes you use a geocentric frame and sometimes a heliocentric frame and so forth... Brent but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, save that reality does imply such a reality is really there. True. Although this absolute landscape would look different according to one's perspective (position, motion, etc) it hopefully represents the intersubjective agreement of all possible observers. If you express this landscape only in terms of invariants, not coordinates and not relative to a particular observer or frame, then you could call it absolute, but as you note that tends to be a messy representation to work with, so we tend to use some particular representation; the same way we navigate with flat map projections instead of charting courses on globes. 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
Re: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they are not? Ways p.s. it's clear that between any arbitrarily chosen pair of bits of energy there's a whole universe of ways to be different relative to one another. But assuming there is a sense the universe has a single age in some sense that is true, and that that then looks like a wafer thin symmetrical bubble the big bang at the centre, then it seems reasonable that all such differences cancel out when the whole bubble is taken together. Therefore being no different than any more conventional definition of a frame in that sense at least. Is there some extra sense, then, that doesn't reasonably cancel out, that this isn't by whatever gross stretch, a frame, or some reasonable metaphor for a parallel? p.p.s. the rationale for this in context of seeking a strongest sense of his argument, is that although fair enough he himself choose to state things first and foremost as deriving from things like the sense people on Andromeda share this moment, and two twins share this moment and so on. The fact is, his argument is actually for a sense there is a universal shared moment, and we would have to allow he hasn't worked out the niggly details of exactly how that pans out between specific pairs of frames, and indeed in terms of relativity theory at all. The first question is surely, is a sense that we can agree that a universe common moment can be true at the scale of the universal. That hopefully can be stated in some sense of relativity, but more importantly, can be stated in some sense that is true independently of whatever relativity has 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
Re: Block Universes
On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they are not? Ways -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one same moment for each unit of energy, or not? Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense first, that would be true independently of relativity, such that it too could be totally true. At least as a starting point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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'm not sure you can distinguish a unit of energy. These can be changed from one for to another. Suppose an atom with an age (since it emerged from the big bang) of 12Gy absorbs a photon with an age of 10Gy (although a CMBR photon would presumably have an age of 400,000 years since no time elapses for photons!) ... what's the age of the excited atom that results? On 8 February 2014 17:54, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one same moment for each unit of energy, or not? Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense first, that would be true independently of relativity, such that it too could be totally true. At least as a starting point. -- You received this message because you 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: Block Universes
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, Some good questions! Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite. A lot of people claim that data suggests the universe is flat, but the data does not actually suggest that. What the data suggests is only that the universe is very LARGE, i.e. that the curvature, if any, is very slight. Also note that for the universe to actually be flat Omega must be EXACTLY=1 to enormous precision. While if it varies from 1 in only the umpteenth digit it is not actually flat, just very large. The statistical likelihood of a number near to 1 being exactly 1 rather than the near infinite other values it could have is incredibly low. So there is no real indication that the universe is actually flat, only that whatever curvature it has is slight. Another good example of how otherwise intelligent scientists often misinterpret their own data! Sure, the issue is not whether it is flat, as surely Omega must differ slightly from 1, but whether Omega is greater than 1, or less than 1. If Omega were less than 1, space has a negative curvature, and the universe is open (never contracts into a big crunch). The empirical data I was alluding to was the observation that the universe's expansion accelerated, starting about a billion years ago. I thought this indicated a negative curvature case, although still close to flat. Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed here. A quick Google search indicates they're still arguing over what the WMAP data means, though: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html vs http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/weird-findings-suggest-we-live-saddle-shaped-universe-f8C11133381 My theory does NOT assume an embedding dimension. The 4-dimensional hypersphere is the whole shebang Actually, you're right. The radius of a 4D hypersphere does not depend on the embedding dimension - just as the radius of a circle does not depend on embedding dimension. Sorry. Since my universe is hyperspherical with p-time the radial dimension, the passage of p-time is what 'inflates' the cosmic balloon, whose surface is the current universe, and thus what produces the current value of the curvature of space and causes the Hubble expansion. How close does space have to be to a hypersphere in order for your theory to work? General relativity demands local departure from flatness (and sphericity for that matter) to account for gravitational phenomena. This may be related to Brent's comments... 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: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:34:25 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 8 February 2014 17:16, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? I don't think so. Massive objects will have experienced gravitational time dilation relative to gas-filled voids, for example. A neutron star formed early in the history of the universe will be rather younger (in terms of time since the big bang) than the Earth, for example. Hi Liz - ok fair enough. So then can we turn that on its head by saying those objects are either physically real at the count of moments equating with 13.7B years or not? Assuming we can all agree that your point is totally legitimate, but that it doesn't make sense to say that these objects do not exist relative to some imaginery nearby object with an idealized standard count back to the big bang at 13.7B years? Then the issue you raise splits two ways. The sense it isn't true the object shares the same counts back to the big bang in terms of its subjective experience. And the sense it is true the object nevertheless is fully existent at 13.7B years. I mean, in this sense, it seems to follow (maybe daftly) that the big bang itself is still at the stage it hasn't happened yet, while somehow equally much at 13.7B years? What would it take for that to be true, assuming my intuition isn't bent? If we extended that to all densities, such that the centre of a proton experiences a time line differently relative to the edge of a proton, then does that say that the centre of all protons share a common tick of moments to the big bang, wherever they are? And their edge (i.e. out at the radius of a proton) also share a common tick of moments right back? Then the dense objects like neutron stars would also be sharing a common tick back between them, different at different densities. And so on. And all of this really just for the sense of illustration that what we are talking about might be made more intuitive. Such that we can return to Edgar's insight at its strongest, by asking, does all this make some sense of a resolved common moment more or less a hard physical requirement, that is independent of relativity? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one same moment for each unit of energy, or not? Units of energy don't have an identity. If a He atom loses an electron and then a million years later gains an electron there's no way, even in principle to say it's the same electron that was lost or the same ionized He atom. And even if it were, the electron and the atoms would have traveled different paths and so measure different time lapses between the events. So there would be no unique age assignable to that atom. Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense
Re: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:26:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one same moment for each unit of energy, or not? Units of energy don't have an identity. If a He atom loses an electron and then a million years later gains an electron there's no way, even in principle to say it's the same electron that was lost or the same ionized He atom. And even if it were, the electron and the atoms would have traveled different paths and so measure different time lapses between the events. So there would be no unique age assignable to that atom. Very true. But are you not there building in that the sense of a unit of energy is tied to definitions of atoms and electromagnetic effect. Which is obviously totally reasonable within best physics. But again, trying on an idea that best physics is not the full story, surely necessities looking first for ways to see things such that this new idea might be true and best physics also be true. Namely, by decoupling our working definition from all such dependencies, as a place to start? We don't need to come up with an actual definition for how a unit of energy could be defined in such a decoupled sense, only a reasonable conception that there would have to be some sense that such a definition could exist and be true. So for example, the principle that energy is never created or destroyed, if that's independly true of
Re: Block Universes
On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true. What is Edgar's insight? Can you explain it? All I've seen is that observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is trivially the meaning of at the same event. His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting. Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the clocks so they define and inertial frame. 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
Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense first, that would be true independently of relativity, such that it too could be totally true. At least as a starting point. I did that. I suggested a way to define a universal now. But it doesn't eliminate the relativity of simultaneity, it just makes a certain choice which is simplifying for some purposes but isn't fundamental. I remember reading something like that, and was hoping I caught instances like that in saying that everything I was suggesting that amounted to doing things differently, wasn't really a bigger ask than what we have acceded to already. I emphasised that in terms of the implicit, but that should arguable always allow for a subset within it that was at some point switched over to explicit. But in context of an instant of that, like what you mention, the distinctiveness in what I'm saying would be what, if anything, might be better if we generalize what we have implicitly agreed to, such that what that is, itself, is made generally explicit. You did already apply it in that sense you give, but you didn't first set up a kind of container for doing something like that, by stating that we should make explicit what we already are doing implicitly anyway. What might be different and better...more suited to purpose...if we set up that container first, and then use that as the starting point, for deliberating on how we can best proceed? That's the distinctive point, relative to the fact you already tried to assume a universal now. Really, since the goal is a universal now, the only way that things can be different is in terms of setup. Imagining there is a range of ways to set things up such that a universal now is the result, I would argue that because we are already agreeing to try on his ideas, the way we should choose between set ups, is that we start by differentiating between possible set ups strictly according to some principle of best effort to make edgar's idea work, constrained by some minimum but realistic standard, that keeps whatever we do tied back to our best knowledge, such that whatever we do there is a way to trace our way back to that best knowledge. One candidate method for that would be that we seek to tie in one dimension of best knowledge that is already effectively treated as if it were independent to a great extent. Like a singular sense of the age of the universe, or a singular sense of energy, or whatever works. From that perspective the fragility of your set up of a universal Now, is that from the start you are building it as something that has to be true in some hard fundamental sense, the way a force gets built in. Which is shipwrecked almost immediately by the fact, in doing that you also fix this force of 'now' into the scheme of things such that it has to answer for itself at all scales and in all senses, including - decisively - the scales and senses it's basically pre-falsified either by running foul of something considered hard fact for real like the relativity of simultaneity, and endless other occam senses in which such a new force offers to explain something, that is already explained without it. So, while not purposeful, it's arguable at least, the details of how you set things up, run foul of the goal if that is to find the strongest form of his idea. For example, the way I was suggesting, although clearly problematic at every stage, is building by design if you like, the bias in favour of the universal now not being a force of nature at all, but a realistic approximate simplification of some state of evolution of other effects. And that the way we avoid simply backing the fragility off to those underlying effects as effectively assuming they are the new 'force' in reality, is by marrying those effects up with something that we do already assume, that we re-rejig our current reading of, by a simple procedure of iteratively seeking to de-couple that effect from other effects that are only fundamental in the first place because we currently already assume both sides of the coupling are fundamental as well as the coupling itself. That's a reasonable way to iteratively proceed. If our goal is finding the strongest sense his idea can be true, for the
Re: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:19:12 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure you can distinguish a unit of energy. These can be changed from one for to another. Suppose an atom with an age (since it emerged from the big bang) of 12Gy absorbs a photon with an age of 10Gy (although a CMBR photon would presumably have an age of 400,000 years since no time elapses for photons!) ... what's the age of the excited atom that results? I suppose the most consistent way to answer that from the perspective I'm throwing out, would be to ask whether that clearly legitimate question is at a level of complexity we can reasonable hope to address, before having first finding a way to set things up at a much more generic level. It's at least arguable it isn't a reasonable expectation, the same way it wouldn't have been reasonable to solve so precisely for the generic principles in play by considering a car-crash with no basic theoretical framework for isolated laws to begin with. By 'basic' I obviously mean in a totally gratuitous extreme of the generic as already indicated! On 8 February 2014 17:54, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Let me clarify my previous answer a little. P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though it doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension actually is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega 1)? Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative curvature? Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding space. So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor cycles of all the computations that produce the current information state of the universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. Hope that makes it a little clearer Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical computer with the curvature of spacetime? Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in terms of their history to the same number of moments NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several different ways to define a cosmic now (but they don't agree with each other). Brent Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one same moment for each unit of energy, or not? Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 of that same count, or 2 or
Re: Block Universes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true. What is Edgar's insight? Can you explain it? All I've seen is that observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is trivially the meaning of at the same event. His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting. Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the clocks so they define and inertial frame. Brent I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands or falls on. I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be about time in the end. So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. That's my best guess for your answer. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
