Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 12/30/2019 5:44 PM, George Levy wrote:

On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D


We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we?

Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led 
him to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and 
Schrodinger’s cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s 
chamber and conducted the experiment himself.


Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led 
me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, 
quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The 
following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and 
nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him 
Schrodinger’s Katz.


Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers 
in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which 
contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a 
detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the 
original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)


These experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. 
I do not have any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think 
they are worth sharing.


1)*First Law -* These experiments aim at determining whether the 
forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak 
forces) are constant from the point of view of an observer.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the 
Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is /not 
radioactive/?


*b)*He then measures the radioactivity of a /second radium sample far 
away/ from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference 
between the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?


*c)*Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, 
therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He 
turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the 
radioactivity of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) 
Is there any change in the measurements?


*d)*He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from 
the counter. What does he find?


*e)*Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps 
outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium 
samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different 
from the inside?


How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, 
strong, weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is 
energy conserved?


2)*Second Law.* (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
second law)


Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a 
heat flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at 
the other, and a differential thermometer that measures the 
temperature difference between the two ends of the bar. When the 
difference falls below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers 
the explosive. Dr. Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new 
chamber.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature 
difference never falls below the predetermined value.


*b)*Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures?Does his 
explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?


*c)*What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
observe any difference in heat flow?


I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - 
just guesses. Do you know the answers?




My fairly confident guess is that Dr. Katz is killed in the first 
experiment and never gets to the second one.


Brent


George



-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on 
perpetual motion machines and the second law.

John Clark posted

"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from
nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep
extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just a
law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that then
you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just
more ways something can be disorganized than organized.

and quoting Hawking:
Disord

Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

[George Levy]

On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of 
energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D


We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we?

Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led him 
to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and Schrodinger’s 
cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s chamber and conducted 
the experiment himself.


Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led 
me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, 
quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The 
following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and 
nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him 
Schrodinger’s Katz.


Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers 
in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which 
contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a 
detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the 
original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)


These experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I 
do not have any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think 
they are worth sharing.


1)*First Law -* These experiments aim at determining whether the forces 
of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces) are 
constant from the point of view of an observer.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the 
Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is /not radioactive/?


*b)*He then measures the radioactivity of a /second radium sample far 
away/ from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference between 
the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?


*c)*Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, 
therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He 
turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the radioactivity 
of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there any 
change in the measurements?


*d)*He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from the 
counter. What does he find?


*e)*Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps 
outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium 
samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different 
from the inside?


How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, 
strong, weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is energy 
conserved?


2)*Second Law.* (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the 
second law)


Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a heat 
flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the 
other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature 
difference between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls 
below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. 
Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.


*a)*Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, 
following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature difference 
never falls below the predetermined value.


*b)*Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the 
thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the 
thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures?Does his explanation 
involve quantization of thermal energy?


*c)*What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he 
observe any difference in heat flow?


I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - 
just guesses. Do you know the answers?


George



-Original Message-
From: George Levy 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines

Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on perpetual 
motion machines and the second law.

John Clark posted

"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from
nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep
extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just a
law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that then
you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical
because there is no getting around the fact that there are just
more ways something can be disorganized than organized.

and quoting Hawking:
Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction 
in which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking 

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

For whatever stupid reason, I tended to agree with the late US philosopher, 
Nozick, on whomever lands in DC or Moscow, or yeah, and afterlife, it's the 
closest continuer. Is it disputable, sure go ahead. But as we say in the US, 
'close enough for government work!' It's how much accurate data the copy or 
clone contains? Thus, I am willing to consider the clone (screw the no-cloning 
theorem), the "soul" because the dude is alive in MOCKBA drinking piva (beer) 
while the DC version is smoked. In Helsinki? Again, The difference between a 
rock and a rabbit, is the information it contains-that was from Claude Shannon. 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 30, 2019 10:54 am
Subject: Re: Superdeterminism in comics


> On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/20/2019 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But the question is about the prediction of his future 1p-experience. Here 
>> the guy can assert that he (in Helsinki) can predict with certainty that he 
>> will feel to be in only one place, but he cannot, for obvious reason, write 
>> dow which one in his diary.
> 
> How can he be certain of that?  Maybe he will experience both places.  Would 
> it make any difference if he predicted that?

If the Helsinki guy predicts that he will experience both places 5washington 
and Moscow), and that indeed both copies claim and show that indeed they are in 
both place, that would entail a form of telepathy which is logically impossible 
with (Indexical Digital) Mechanism.
I think that both Moscow and Washington will be interested as this will give a 
new efficacious way of spying!

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83d74b4e-1486-d532-4ed2-e212495ce7ef%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A8E7E518-9F03-4A58-ADAC-128F90B1D2B4%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1440948674.5866408.1577730416402%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Cosmology in crisis as evidence suggests our universe isn't flat, it's actually curved.

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Dec 2019, at 13:03, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 5:15:31 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> There should not be cosmology or physics where anything infinite is observed. 
> Horizons in spacetime make only a finite amount of information accessible to 
> any observer. This would hold in even a flat infinite space.
> In either case, finite or infinite, one is confronted with some unpleasant 
> realities. If the universe is strictly finite there is always an 
> uncomfortable sense that a finite set is bounded, and as such there can 
> potentially be something outside it. If the universe is infinite then how can 
> we completely understand it?
> 
> LC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a finite-universe physics (FUP) and an infinite-universe physics 
> (IUP) and IUP adds nothing better than FUP in terms of predictions, 
> explanations, or anything other than a religious satisfaction, then what good 
> is IUP?
> 
> @philipthrift


Digital Mechanism enforces finitism (but not ultrafinitism) at the conceptual 
primitive level.

What exist is very clear and clearcut. 

What exist are K, S, KK, KS, SK, …, or, if you prefer, 0, S0, SS0, SSS0, …

Of course, “everything" will appear through the facts that those entities obeys 
laws, like Kxy = x, or x + 0 = x.
But very few laws are needed to make those entities Turing universal.

At the meta-level, we do intuit that the realm we talk about is infinite, as 
there is an infinity of finite number or finite combinators, or finite digital 
machines, and in the Turing case, we allow the machine to explore unbounded 
(mental and digital) space.

Yet, it can be shown that the machine who allows themselves the belief in 
(diverse) infinities, get more quickly powerful tools to develop the 
understanding of the possible relations in between machines, and eventually 
they might grasp the special relation between consciousness and infinity, that 
we get by the invariance of the first person experience in the delays of the 
universal dovetailer. 

That gives quantum logic, but the hard problem is to get the tensorial algebra 
“multiplying the isolated people in a coherent first person *plural* 
experience. It is a technical problem. It consists in developing the algebra of 
the operators given by the quantisation ([]<>p) with the box of the material 
modes of self-reference. 

Eventually we need the quantified modal logics of self-reference qG and qG*. 
Those are highly undecidable. qG is pi_2-complete, and qG* is pi_1 complete 
*in* the oracle of the whole arithmetical truth. The god/ONE of the machine 
(arithmetical truth) is overwhelmed by the its Intellect/Noùs! 

The science of machine/numbers is so complex that there is job for all 
universal machines and all their Oracles//Gods. Here by machine/number I mean 
something representable by a finite or a recursively enumerable set or 
function, and by "a god" a non recursively enumerable set or function. 

It is easy to modify the Turing formalism to allow a Turing machine to ask a 
yes-no question to some god. Add the quadruplet having the shape q_i S_j q_k 
q_r, with the operational meaning that if the Turing machine is in the sate 
q_i, observing the symbol S_j, she will ask her question to her god , and if 
that god answers yes, she will be in the state q_k, and if It's answer is no 
she will be in the state q_r. Turing used this to to generalise incompleteness 
to the incompleteness of the machine helped by diverse sort of gods, even just 
about the arithmetical reality.

In mathematics/arithmetic, some object can look small from outside and 
infinitely big from inside.

Best,

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cc568772-8b18-4a6b-b985-1fbd64596121%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C2F3B475-AB91-4BB5-ACB8-F167CFC27C1B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/20/2019 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But the question is about the prediction of his future 1p-experience. Here 
>> the guy can assert that he (in Helsinki) can predict with certainty that he 
>> will feel to be in only one place, but he cannot, for obvious reason, write 
>> dow which one in his diary.
> 
> How can he be certain of that?  Maybe he will experience both places.  Would 
> it make any difference if he predicted that?

If the Helsinki guy predicts that he will experience both places 5washington 
and Moscow), and that indeed both copies claim and show that indeed they are in 
both place, that would entail a form of telepathy which is logically impossible 
with (Indexical Digital) Mechanism.
I think that both Moscow and Washington will be interested as this will give a 
new efficacious way of spying!

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83d74b4e-1486-d532-4ed2-e212495ce7ef%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A8E7E518-9F03-4A58-ADAC-128F90B1D2B4%40ulb.ac.be.