Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

The correlation is actually pretty solid, though the discrepancies may 
indicate some other factors at play also. 

And what makes you think another ice age isn't coming? it's more or less 
time for the next one.

Or perhaps global warming is what will either stop it or make it less 
intense, and thus may be the best thing to happen for the preservation of 
civilization?
:-)

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:41:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the 
> last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and 
> we can expect global cooling to occur again.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Spud,
>
> Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations 
> esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I 
> would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly 
> cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to 
> perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is 
> fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an 
> eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.o
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations 
esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I 
would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly 
cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to 
perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is 
fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an 
eruption c. 535 AD. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim 
> volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of 
> the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and 
> again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and 
> rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread 
> bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edgar L. Owen >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  Richard, 
>
>  Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>
>   Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages
>20 March 2014 2:00 pm
>[image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian 
> deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern 
> oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard 
> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* 
> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red 
> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls 
> into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from 
> the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the 
> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that 
> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong 
> evidence—until now.
> “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says 
> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of 
> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount 
> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, 
> but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done 
> in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms 
> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During 
> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal 
> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry 
> out, the thinking went. Then
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

Here is a much better graph showing the correlation. Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares 
> isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as 
> comparable data over a longer time.
>
>
> http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is 
that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which 
Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are 
certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The 
tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice 
ages..

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition
>  from extreme warming to cooling?
>
> I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility 
> based on plate movement.
>
> But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream
> known to result from arctic warming.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the 
> current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular 
> cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of 
> continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut 
> off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica 
> at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the 
current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular 
cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of 
continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut 
off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica 
at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it 
there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of 
plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to 
their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents.

Edgar


On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
> The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in atm 
> CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global temp. 
> The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years more 
> or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such 
> abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems 
> that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not 
> a good explanation after all.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>
> Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 
> 20 March 2014 2:00 pm
> [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts 
> (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard 
> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva*
>
> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red 
> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>
> It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into 
> the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the 
> air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the 
> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that 
> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong 
> evidence—until now.
>
> “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says 
> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of 
> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount 
> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, 
> but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done 
> in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
>
> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms 
> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During 
> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal 
> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry 
> out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained, 
> dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon 
> dioxide–sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean’s food chain. 
> Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past 
> millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface 
> waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only 
> a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist 
> at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.
>
> Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Sure, I'm well aware of these predictions, but my point is that many 
necessary global resources are being rapidly depleted by just the current 
human population, so even that is not sustainable.

In general the standard demographic predictions don't pay much attention to 
the dwindling resources upon which population is dependent.

Edgar



On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:49:27 AM UTC-4, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Spud,
>>
>> But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, 
>> the ecosystem, and the human species itself.
>>
>> Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I 
>> fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology 
>> that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the 
>> exponentially increasing number of humans.
>>
>> So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it 
>> sustainably
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>
> Most demographers project that the population will level off at around 10 
> billion, because of various trends that tend to reduce the number of 
> children like populations becoming more urban and women being more 
> educated--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Projectionsfor 
> some info. Of course predicting human behavior is never purely 
> scientific and there are some who think this projection is too optimistic, 
> see 
> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_if_experts_are_wrong_on_world_population_growth/2444/
>
> 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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

But reducing human overpopulation IS the main problem facing the planet, 
the ecosystem, and the human species itself.

Assuming that increasing technology will somehow solve the problem is, I 
fear, naive. It is precisely the use of more and more powerful technology 
that has resulted in the exponential destruction of the environment by the 
exponentially increasing number of humans.

So it's not better technology we need, but the wisdom to use it 
sustainably

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:59:36 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Edgar, understood. But this shouldn't be the top of our priority, unless 
> we are spreading homo sapiens to various parts of the solar system where 
> humanity, and biomes, can be sustained for a very long time. Getting away 
> from science fiction, there are things we can do until this golden 
> interplanetary age. I don't see that a Paul Ehrlich response is a good way 
> to go, or even achievable at this point. Hence, I'd prefer the technology 
> path, rather than adopting China's one child policy. 
>  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

If only dead wood is cut for firewood and cooking you are just recycling a 
sustainable resource. Unlike coal and oil, firewood quickly and sustainably 
regenerates. And basically burning dead wood is just speeding up the 
natural process of the decay of dead trees. 

So burning dead wood for heat is NOT the problem. It's a completely 
sustainable process. The problem is way too many people so they are forced 
to cut LIVE wood and denude forests. So again it's a human overpopulation 
problem, not a firewood problem...

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the 
> environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, 
> might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping 
> then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard 
> of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry 
> more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others 
> are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates 
> permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. 
>  
> Mitch
>
> Spud, 
>
>  Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used 
> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead 
> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. 
> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last le
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

The best, likely the only, way to protect the environment is to drastically 
reduce human overpopulation. Down to pre-industrial levels would be a good 
target ~half to 1 billion...

Anyway if we don't do it ourselves the environment will do it for us...

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:43:35 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> You have a point, Edgar, and you yourself do not have a bad effect on the 
> environment. However, a billion and one half fellow firewood gatherers, 
> might have a more profound impact, and they may do a bit more than chopping 
> then you do. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when peoples standard 
> of living improves, they start demanding a cleaner environment, and worry 
> more about wildlife. You are doing the good because you choose to. Others 
> are forced to gather firewood and chop trees. I hope nobody advocates 
> permanent poverty as a method to protect the environment. 
>  
> Mitch
>
> Spud, 
>
>  Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used 
> firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead 
> trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. 
> Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or 
> very 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

Using firewood properly done does NOT disrupt the forest. I've used 
firewood for heating most of my life including currently. I use only dead 
trees from my own property (16 acres), not taking any with nesting holes. 
Only very rarely do I cut a live tree when it's clearly on its last legs or 
very occasionally where it's shading out a better quality tree. And then I 
spread all the ashes from my wood stove back onto the land.

This is sustainable living at its best and improves the forest, not 
degrading it as you suggest, especially when compared to most 
alternatives

Edgar



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:16:32 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Tackling thing technically will save lots or preaching, in emails, and 
> public speaking. For example, if you cook all your food by wood-gathering, 
> you are more likely to disrupt the forests by your gatherings. If you have 
> access to cheap solar, wind, and maybe natural gas lines, then the urge for 
> gathering wood and chopping trees three times a day diminishes. On the 
> other hand if you want Bobby Bureaucrat to run your life, even if his laws 
> don't actively change whatever you wish to achieve (air quality?), then 
> you're good with that. Looking over the last 20 years, government, rather 
> then being a beneficial force, now appears, worldwide, to be a malign 
> force. If you are wanting results that please you, then perhaps, despite 
> their promises and guarantees, the politicians and the billionaires that 
> own them, have failed mightily. Feel free to disagree with this 
> observation.  
>  -Original Message-
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 10:32 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, > wrote:
>
> Very well, go ahead and power it all down. Shut off the cars, kill the 
> lights, take a bike. Are you suggesting that we continue to burn filthy 
> coal, or horrible uranium, while we try to goose up solar and wind to 
> replace it?!! Why that will take decades and the catastrophe is already 
> upon us. The heating of the atmosphere and the degradation of the lands and 
> seas, cannot wait (your guys tell us). Or what are they really saying, put 
> into motion in real life? It comes down to a culture of complaint from the 
> green-reds, rather than actual workable solutions. I want technical 
> solutions, but then, I am in the minority, as you indicate, and your side 
> (and it is your side) wants people controlled and dominated (impoverished) 
> and I see myself as someone who'd rather help people,
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz, et al,

The problem with your and other's comments is that, as I've explained 
before, entropy is NOT fundamental as many seem to think..

The current entropy state depends entirely on the current mix of the four 
fundamental forces, in particular on whether gravitation is more attractive 
or repulsive. For example if gravitation suddenly switched from attractive 
to repulsive from a universal black hole collapse to a white hole big bang 
that would automatically explain the supposedly improbably initial LOW 
entropy state that has Penrose and others so puzzled.

So when you try to connect information and entropy you again run into this 
same problem. If, as the universe expands, the balance of repulsive to 
attractive gravitation shifts so will the entropy balance. 

This is easy to see. In a universe where gravitation is massively repulsive 
the maximum entropy state will be a uniform dispersion of matter throughout 
all space, but just the opposite in a universe with massively attractive 
gravitation where the maximum entropy state will be a single universal 
black hole.

So entropy is NOT fundamental. It depends on the current mix of forces. AND 
entropy has nothing to do with the arrow of time either.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:35:11 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 19 March 2014 15:55, Russell Standish 
> > wrote:
>
>> So an expanding universe should give rise to increasing maximum
>> entropy, but the total energy remains constant (at zero). As for what
>> happens to the free energy (stuff available for work), its a bit more
>> complicated, but it appears that processes reducing the free energy
>> (or increasing the entropy, as its the same thing) are not currently
>> keeping up with the increase in maximum entropy caused by an expanding
>> universe.
>>
>> This is the bottom line, in a nutshell. As long as the entropy ceiling 
> goes on rising, the energy available to do work decreases, I think 
> asymptotially, but is never reduced to zero. (Hence we might still have 
> conscious beings made from electron-positron "atoms" larger than the 
> current Hubble radius in the year 1 googol... perhaps) I'm not sure what 
> happens when the available energy reaches the zero point level, though?
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

[Edgar L. Owen]

Telmo,

No, that was Brent's claim. I'm asking him to tell us how it works. Where 
is all that additional information about past states stored if he thinks 
none of it is lost?

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:32:48 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Telmo,
>>
>> No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total 
>> information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of 
>> information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that 
>> amount to the cumulative total.
>>
>
> So you're essentially claiming that the universe is increasing 
> exponentially in complexity?
>  
>
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17:28 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brent,
>>>>
>>>> If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the 
>>>> universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has 
>>>> been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being 
>>>> stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in 
>>>> the SAME amount of matter states?
>>>>
>>>
>>> By an increase in Shannon entropy, up to a point.
>>> This is why you can compress computer files, for example.
>>>
>>> Telmo.
>>>  
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around 
>>>> somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states?
>>>>
>>>> I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it 
>>>> first
>>>>
>>>> Edgar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>  On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the 
>>>>>> system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with 
>>>>>> them.  So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, 
>>>>>> decoherence has the same effect.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given 
>>>>> unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. 
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible.  In fact from the 
>>>>> standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just 
>>>>> like 
>>>>> Laplace's universe.  So, as always, when the word "possibility" is used 
>>>>> there has to be some context.  To *calculate* a history of the universe 
>>>>> from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present 
>>>>> state, 
>>>>> including your mental state.  Is that "theoretically possible"?  I think 
>>>>> it 
>>>>> involves a paradox of self-reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>  To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect 
>>>>> information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it 
>>>>> loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in 
>>>>> a 
>>>>> universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so 
>>>>> (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the 
>>>>> laws of physics could.
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL.  But relative 
>>>>> to any point it loses information across spacetime horizons.  So there's 
>>>>> no 
>>>>> way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some 
>>>>> God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the 
>>>>> past anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: 
>>>>> arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.555

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Well I'm using loose language to make it easier to understand. Actually it 
is the information itself that represents what are then interpreted by 
humans and science as matter states

My point being that the information forms that manifest as matter states in 
human internal mental models of reality don't continually reproduce 
themselves to produce more of what is interpreted as matter states, so how 
does Brent think all the additional information of all actual prior matter 
states are stored, if not in the information of current matter states?

That's more precise but not sure if it's clearer...

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:24:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 12:54, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow 
> without actually being encoded in actual matter states?
>
>
> This contradicts your statement that the physical arises from the 
> computational. 
> But you have not yet define what you mean by computational.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

If human overpopulation is not drastically reduced humanely it will 
inevitably be drastically reduced INhumanely...

There are a number of ways to reduce human overpopulation humanely. Mainly 
by offering sufficient financial incentives to women of child bearing age 
to undergo voluntary sterilization. There are a number of ways this could 
be fine tuned to work quite well.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:16:16 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> 
> > wrote:
>  
>>
>>  > I have offered quite a few prescriptions – none of which you will 
>> approve of, because they entail the adoption of a new ethic of material 
>> frugality, of having a light footprint, and of adopting sustainable 
>> practices, as we also phase out current unsustainable ones. You seem to be 
>> violently opposed to the very idea of such an ethic
>>
>
> I am violently opposed to your prescriptions because they can NOT keep the 
> present world population alive, BILLIONS would die horribly. So don't give 
> me any of that righteous moral high ground crap environmentalists wallow 
> in. 
>
> > and are hostile to energy harvesting – the solar flux, the wind. 
>>
>
> I would be in favor of them if they worked,  but environmentalists would 
> be in favor of them only if they don't work. To environmentalists new 
> energy sources are fine as long as it's all just theoretical, but as soon 
> as it starts to look practical and somebody tries to actually build a large 
> solar or wind instillation they do everything they can to stop it.   
>   
>
>>  > All the various threads of our world’s problems are rooted in the same 
>> evil system that has elevated naked greed to the supreme preeminent level.
>>
>
> All our problems are rooted in the same thing, SIN;  so repent now or 
> suffer the just punishment of the Environmental Gods! You should have been 
> a preacher, but then now that I think about it, you already are.
>
>   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/d/optout.

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

[Edgar L. Owen]

Telmo,

No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total 
information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of 
information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that 
amount to the cumulative total.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17:28 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the 
>> universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has 
>> been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being 
>> stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in 
>> the SAME amount of matter states?
>>
>
> By an increase in Shannon entropy, up to a point.
> This is why you can compress computer files, for example.
>
> Telmo.
>  
>
>>
>> Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow 
>> without actually being encoded in actual matter states?
>>
>> I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it first
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>>>  On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>  
>>>  On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>>  But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the 
>>>> system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with 
>>>> them.  So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, 
>>>> decoherence has the same effect.
>>>>  
>>>  
>>>  I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given 
>>> unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. 
>>>  
>>>
>>> The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible.  In fact from the 
>>> standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just like 
>>> Laplace's universe.  So, as always, when the word "possibility" is used 
>>> there has to be some context.  To *calculate* a history of the universe 
>>> from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present state, 
>>> including your mental state.  Is that "theoretically possible"?  I think it 
>>> involves a paradox of self-reference.
>>>
>>>  To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect 
>>> information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it 
>>> loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in a 
>>> universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so 
>>> (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the 
>>> laws of physics could.
>>>  
>>>
>>> Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL.  But relative to 
>>> any point it loses information across spacetime horizons.  So there's no 
>>> way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some 
>>> God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the 
>>> past anyway.
>>>
>>> There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: 
>>> arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more 
>>> technical paper.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>   
>>>  I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the past 
>>> happening on TV.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>   -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the 
universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has 
been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being 
stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in 
the SAME amount of matter states?

Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around somehow 
without actually being encoded in actual matter states?

I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it first

Edgar



On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the 
>> system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with 
>> them.  So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, 
>> decoherence has the same effect.
>>  
>  
>  I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given 
> unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. 
>  
>
> The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible.  In fact from the 
> standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just like 
> Laplace's universe.  So, as always, when the word "possibility" is used 
> there has to be some context.  To *calculate* a history of the universe 
> from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present state, 
> including your mental state.  Is that "theoretically possible"?  I think it 
> involves a paradox of self-reference.
>
>  To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect 
> information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it 
> loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in a 
> universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so 
> (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the 
> laws of physics could.
>  
>
> Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL.  But relative to 
> any point it loses information across spacetime horizons.  So there's no 
> way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some 
> God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the 
> past anyway.
>
> There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: 
> arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more 
> technical paper.
>
> Brent
>
>   
>  I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the past 
> happening on TV.
>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent.

Correct to a point and those networks of entanglement form the basis of my 
theory of how space arises piecewise from quantum events that no one here 
is interested in exploring even though it resolves all quantum paradox and 
shows how to unify QT and GR.

Ah, well, there is always the Sex Pistols to occupy your intellects!
:-)

Edgar



On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:47:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the 
> system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with 
> them.  So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, 
> decoherence has the same effect.
>
> Brent
>
> On 3/18/2014 2:52 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>  
> Yes, if you have the exact present quantum state and you're assuming the 
> normal quantum rules for continuous wavefunction evolution, you can 
> determine the past quantum state. The answer might change if you assume 
> that there's an objective physical reality to the "collapse" of 
> wavefunction with measurement, distinct from the normal wavefunction 
> evolution rules. 
>
>  Jesse
>  
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:33 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> Am I right in assuming that in a quantum mechanical universe you can 
>> trace the history backwards?
>>
>>   -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>  
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Video of VCR

[Edgar L. Owen]

Craig,

Depends on what you mean by 'self-awareness'. Do you mean awareness that 
you are a separate 'thing' in the world with special attributes? Or do you 
mean the self monitoring awareness of your actual functions as you perform 
them?

These are two very different meanings of self-awareness.

Edgar



On Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:17:47 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:00:48 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it 
>> around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness?
>>
>
> It's not my theory, but does computationalism provide a reason why your 
> eye looking in the mirror doesn't have self-awareness?
>  
>
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://31.media.tumblr.com/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif>
>>> http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
>>>
>>> Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
>>>
>>> Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any 
>>> computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? 
>>> Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance 
>>> of developing that awareness than those which have not? If not, what 
>>> initial conditions would be necessary for such an awareness to develop in 
>>> some machines and how would those initial conditions appear?
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

Richard,

Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on 
each other even more viciously!

So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing the dumping?
:-)

Edgar



On Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:23:28 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> The situation at everything list seems to be deteriorating.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

How is going to another planet and screwing that one up too going to help.

The problem is not astronomical, it's human nature. The very success of 
humans as a species depended on the ruthless exploitation of nature and 
repression of competition. But those exact same aspects of human nature are 
what is now destroying our planet's ecosystem and likely ourselves. 

Can we change human nature? Unlikely I fear...

Edgar



On Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:58:38 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> If we could just get away from one planet ... but the difficulty is, well, 
> astronomical. Before now we could always leave the place where disaster 
> struck, move from the valley where the soil was full of salt or whatever, 
> start again with a fresh load of resources. I can't see us doing that this 
> time, though.
>
>
> On 16 March 2014 14:32, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:02:31 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, and once this happens, that will be it for humanity, of course, 
>>> because we can't restart civilisation with no easily accessible fuel 
>>> sources. So we'll stay in the middle ages until a passing comet gets us (or 
>>> similar).
>>>
>>> This does of course explain why SETI hasn't found anything. Hell of a 
>>> way to prove a theory though. 
>>>
>>  
>> Earlier collapses where small and local, but almost nothing ever 
>> survived. The bigger the progress, the great the surge, the more the 
>> feedback to yet more progress, the steeper the exponential dimensional 
>> growth of the potentiality and the sophistication. But the complexity of 
>> the problems rises exponentially to for linear steps. The progress has a 
>> lifespan, and the lifespan...the life span is exponential as per the 
>> extents of the fundamental progress and breakthrough. But in thye end the 
>> progress starts to slow away from the exponential, and the result is 
>> unhandled problems, which diminish the overall potential of the system, 
>> thus progress dimishes at a faster rate, and the problems and complexities 
>> start to run ahead. How far those problems and complexities run ahead 
>> before the collapse, is the scale of the catastrophe. How fare it gets is 
>> about energy. Fat...how much capacity has a society or a people 
>> accumulated, and how recklessly and destructively it is now being spent, 
>> and who controls the process now, and what is in their nature. The West and 
>> rest amassed unbelievable excess energy, in prosperity, productivity, 
>> efficiency, technology, science. Now it is being spent at a rate that also 
>> goes up exponentially. We just don't see that because we don't understand 
>> the nature of energy, so we only see a partial view of it the part we do 
>> understand. But the energy compared to the biggest collapse on this dynamic 
>> before us, is like the Sun to the Moon. Our energy is feeding into the trap 
>> and it grows bigger and bigger...it's huge now. yet we still have more to 
>> put it. 
>>  
>> There isn't going to be another day for the human dream. There's one way, 
>> and that's to save this day. But it's a window held open by as little as a 
>> single thread. The reversal is a reversal of everything, of ideas, of 
>> potentials, of ideologies, of minds. Everything that was the most promising 
>> and good becomes the worst of the most destructive and foul. Nothing is the 
>> right vehicle for that turnaround. So the nature of the challenge is 
>> something that becomes and evolves from within itself, does not ask for 
>> permission or explain or persuade, just attaches, extracts, realigns and 
>> corrects. It's a process that would need to be a 2nd scientific revolution, 
>> a revolution of economics, of society, of strategy and of mind. This is the 
>> theory that is needed. Not one that goes into a 'paper' and asks to be read 
>> and loved and adopted by a world gone hive. But a theory directly 
>> existential, that becomes an evolutionof strategy that gets it right, 
>> everything. So has time to evolve, and solves for evolution within itself, 
>> and for a consciousness such that it's an extension of us, and between 
>> us, more than us, but no more than any one of us. A consciousness can turn 
>> hive, like everything else. There's a right way to evolve it and up to an 
>> infinity of degree by which to get it wrong. How right, or how long is how 
>> long before the reversal. 
>> We're not a long lived species. Look at the graph of human species, bar 
>> one, long ago now gone, the species burn out quicker and quicker leading up 
>> to us. We're paying for greateess in longevity. There's a playoff, an 
>> exchange of a finite furtherest extent. 
>>  
>> And how many times has the universe got evolution to this precise point, 
>> and how many times has evolution failed to find the way over this huge 
>> hump. Evolution produces us, so we're part of it, we're the big hope, 
>> that's the natural selection force that has to be unbelievable strong. We 
>> the egg

Re: Video of VCR

[Edgar L. Owen]

Craig,

Hmmm, let me see. If I just take my eye out of its socket and turn it 
around then I guess by your theory I'd have self awareness?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> 
> http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
>
> Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
>
> Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational 
> reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? Would VCRs 
> which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance of 
> developing that awareness than those which have not? If not, what initial 
> conditions would be necessary for such an awareness to develop in some 
> machines and how would those initial conditions appear?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

In terms of the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions the theory I find most 
compelling in both cases is asteroid strikes whose resulting strike 
energies were also focused at the antipodes. The energy of the Cretaceous 
strike off the Yucatan was focused in India where it ruptured the crust 
resulting in the Deccan Traps. The even larger Permian asteroid strike 
occurred in the South Pacific and its energy was focused in Siberia where 
it ruptured the crust there resulting in the Siberian Traps. The time 
frames are roughly consistent though in both cases the traps persisted long 
after the asteroid strikes which initiated them.

So in both cases you would have double whammies whose persistent effects 
lasted for much longer than the effects of the original asteroid impacts 
which initiated them.

Edgar

 

On Saturday, March 15, 2014 1:44:49 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:29 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris de Morsella 
> > 
> wrote:
>
>  
>
> >> 66 million years ago 2/3 of all species, not individual animals but 
> entire species, became extinct quite literally ove
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization

[Edgar L. Owen]

All, this seems like a very reasonable scenario and is in line with my 
thinking.. Edgar


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
NASA-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible 
collapse'?
 
Natural and social scientists develop new model of how 'perfect storm' of 
crises could unravel global system
[image: This NASA Earth Observatory released on]
This Nasa Earth Observatory image shows a storm system circling around an 
area of extreme low pressure in 2010, which many scientists attribute to 
climate change. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted 
the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming 
decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal 
wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or 
controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical 
data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent 
cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption 
due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite 
common."

The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature 
DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of 
the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental 
Synthesis Center , in association with a team of 
natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been 
accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological 
Economics.

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex 
civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the 
sustainability of modern civilisation:

"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, 
Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian 
Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, 
complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."

By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, 
the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain 
civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse 
today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and 
Energy
.

These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two 
crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain 
placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic 
stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") 
[poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character 
or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five 
thousand years."

Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to 
overconsumption of resources, with "Elites" based largely in industrialised 
countries responsible for both:

"... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but 
rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while 
producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, 
usually at or just above subsistence levels."

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these 
challenges by increasing efficiency:

"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also 
tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of 
resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in 
consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two 
centuries has come from "increased (rather than decreased) resource 
throughput," despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period.

Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharri and his colleagues 
conclude that under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world 
today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid." In the first of 
these scenarios, civilisation:

" appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even 
using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of 
Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among 
Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important 
to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine 
that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature."

Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, 
finding that "with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners 
occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving,

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid 
with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain 
the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories 
DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy 
nilly

I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll 
let him speak for himself.

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:52:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
> > depend on "how humans see the world"? 
> > 
> > If so I disagree, 
> > 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's 
> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on 
> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this. 
>
> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of 
> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our 
> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a 
> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather 
> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory 
> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it 
seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of 
every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct?

But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper times 
between A and C with your method?

And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
> not, we are trying to find the truth
>
>
> I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of 
> agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was 
> expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious 
> you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of 
> "lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't 
> deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:
>
> "in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works 
> with spatial lengths"
>
> or:
>
> "in spatial terms a stra
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to 
calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using 
your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will 
be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel further 
in space to get from t1 to t2 and consequently must also travel less far in 
time. Correct?


To confirm, consider a simplified twin example with only straight lines so 
we can ignore accelerations. A remains at rest with a straight vertical 
line from t1 to t3. B travels away from t1 in a straight oblique line, 
reverses direction midpoint (call this t2) and travels in a straight 
oblique line back to t3.

The two halves of B's trip are symmetric (have the same velocities away 
from and back towards A) therefore B's proper time, calculated by A, will 
be = 2 x sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2).  In other words we have to 
multiply by 2 to get the proper time of B for the entire trip. Correct?


OK, now consider another case with A and B just moving with constant 
relative motion and their world lines crossing at t1 and then diverging. 
There is NO acceleration.

In this case using the Lorentz transform both A and B will observe each 
other's time running slow relative to their own. And using your formula 
above both A and B will also observe each other's proper times SLOWED 
RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN.

But doesn't this mean that since A and B get different results about each 
other's proper times that this method of calculating proper times is NOT 
INVARIANT, and thus is not actually calculating proper times which you say 
are invariant?

I agree that this method correctly calculates how A and B observe each 
other's clock times, but not sure that's the same as the other's actual 
proper times.

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
> not, we are trying to find the truth
>
>
> I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of 
> agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was 
> expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious 
> you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of 
> "lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't 
> deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:
>
> "in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works 
> with spatial lengths"
>
> or:
>
> "in spatial terms a straight li
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Edgar L. Owen]

Ghibbsa,

I explain spin entanglement paradox this way:

When the particles are created their spins must already be equal and 
opposite orientations due to conservation. But this is true only in the 
mini spacetime which is defined by their conservation. That spacetime 
fragment is NOT LINKED to the spacetime alignments of the observer and 
laboratory. Thus because separate spacetimes can have no alignments with 
respect to each other, the spin alignment is still undetermined in the 
frame of the observer.

Only when the spin alignment of one particle is measured do these separate 
spacetimes merge through that common event and at this point they are 
automatically aligned so the spin orientations of both particles are 
aligned in the frame of the lab.

As soon as we understand that spacetime is not just a single universal 
common structure but actually consists of separate dynamic fragmentary 
spacetimes that need to be glued together by common events for alignments 
to resolve, then all quantum paradox is resolved because all quantum 
paradoxes seem paradoxical only with respect to the single common fixed 
universal spacetime MISTAKENLY ASSUMED.

All quantum randomness arises because there can be no deterministic rules 
to align completely separate spacetime fragments, thus nature must act 
randomly to align them..

Edgar

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:53:22 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in 
>> its logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically 
>> impossible thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, 
>> p-zombie discussion on this group.
>>
>> First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces 
>> clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that 
>> does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it 
>> doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change 
>> randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem 
>> random, it's quantum level events.
>>
>> If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already 
>> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by 
>> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no 
>> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature 
>> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>>
>> But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only 
>> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>  
>  
> Edgar, so how do you explain things like the two slit experiment and 
> entanglement with this theory?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive. How many 
times do I have to say that it arises from computational space before it 
registers with you?

I've also said over and over that the "physical universe" as we imagine it 
is NOT "out there". The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in 
our minds. It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical 
universe which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of 
in computational space.

I have no idea what you mean by "numbers indexical personal views".

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
> minds work...
>
>
> But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not primitive, 
> and arise from the "computational space".
>
> Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis, etc.), 
> then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of " primitively real 
> universe" come from. Both time and space, and energy, comes from numbers 
> indexical personal views. You might follow the current explanation or read 
> the papers. It makes computationalism testable (and partially tested).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>   
>>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
>> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
>> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
>> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
>> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
>> you end up with solipsism.
>>
>>  
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

I don't know where you are getting your data but the data I've seen shows a 
fairly neat CORRELATION of global temps and CO2. Would you like to give us 
a link that shows otherwise that is authoritative?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb 
> > wrote:
>
> > There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming 
> caused by increased CO2 
>
>
> If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying 
> the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era 
> there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 
> today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact  
> during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far 
> more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm.
>
> >> And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may 
> be getting warmer but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not 
> clearly understood but may be related to clouds, during the day at any 
> given temperature it takes longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 
> years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today much less know 
> if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100.
>
>
> > Sure they can.  It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds.  
> The IPCC AR4 models predict the increased cloudiness. 
>
>
> And what evidence can you provide that prove that particular climate model 
> makes better predictions than nineteen dozen other climate models?  
>
> > The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low clouds and high 
> clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict.
>
>
> If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're uncertain 
> about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that.
>
> > It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing.  
>
>
> Plenty clear? During the Carboniferous era the Earth was not .8 degrees 
> warmer or even 4 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, 
> and yet plant life was far more abundant then than it is now.  
>
> > A lot more people die from starvation than freezing.
>
>
> But more people die from freezing than heatstroke. And why do you thing 
> the ideal temperature to grow the most food occurs when the temperature is 
> .8 degrees cooler than now when we know that when it was 18 degrees warmer 
> plants were more abundant than they've ever been before or sense? 
>
> >> Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a 
> cure for global warming 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
depend on "how humans see the world"?

If so I disagree,

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:53:40 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, 
> each 
> > viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model 
> each 
> > observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
> > confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
> > independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the 
> other? 
> > 
> > O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is 
> really 
> > real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
> > observers as being similar to himself? 
> > 
> > Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it 
> seems 
> > awfully lonely 
> > 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of 
> such a view. 
>
> An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy, 
> which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to 
> be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the 
> world. See Noether's theorem. 
>
> To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical 
> property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive 
> the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard 
> of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective 
> consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external 
> ontological reality. 
>
> Cheers 
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Don't you understand the difference between a repeatable observation, which 
is the basis of science, and human interpretations of reality based on how 
human minds work?

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:12:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
>> empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science 
>> whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based 
>> upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously 
>> some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
>> how minds work...
>>
>>
>> So these consensus views are correct on everything  except space? I'm 
> sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space 
> exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful

Agree?

Edgar


On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>  
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
> don't exist."
>   
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* 
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he 
> said that the classical world was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum 
> world.
>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of. 
>--- Robert Penn Warren
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Ghibbsa,

I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In my 
view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely computational 
in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space. 

The results of these computations are the information states of the 
universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that 
information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to survive 
within...

In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we exist 
is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information only. With 
practice it is possible to directly experience this by actually seeing that 
everything is actually its information components, and that only.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>>
>>
>> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
>> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
>> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
>> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
>> plus observation.
>>
>  
> I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
> the 'Mirror Pair'
>
>>
>>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty 
>>> space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such 
>>> an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>>> internal models of it.
>>>
>>  
>  
>  
> I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
> different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
> being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
> real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
> world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
> reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
> seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
> end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
> design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
>  
> Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
> relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
> If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
> density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
> what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
> the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
> real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
> has to arrange like?  
>  
> It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
> That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
> proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
> physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
> are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
> very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
> dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
> to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
> because physical reality wasn't 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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

I agree that we can use our OBSERVATIONS of the dimensional relationships 
of particulate events to construct a meaningful THEORY of space. Newton did 
it. But Einstein found that it really didn't quite work out and came up 
with a new theory. But now we know that doesn't quite work out either and 
we need a new theory that unifies QT and GR and resolves quantum paradox.

So now I suggest a new THEORY to address these problems. So NO, I am NOT 
confusing observation and theory. I'm going back to the actual ontological 
nature of the actual observations and working from there towards a new 
theory of dimensional space.

And I claim that though the OBSERVATIONS are empirical and repeatable, that 
the THEORY of space is a logico-mathematical construct or edifice, rather 
than anything physical.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:37:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> >> Brent, 
> >> 
> >> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> >> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> >> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> >> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> >> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> >> minds work... 
> > How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> > agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> > more less similar to each other? 
>
> And looking at different things?  If we're similar to each other, then 
> similarity of 
> observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is 
> confounding 
> "observations" with "theories", or he's not allowing for the different 
> degrees in which 
> theories contribute to observations.  We're very different from Nagel's 
> bat, so we don't 
> perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with 
> sonar.  But we both 
> form a three dimensional model of space. 
>
> 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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:46:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
> His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't 
> exist."
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each 
viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each 
observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other?

O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really 
real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
observers as being similar to himself?

Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems 
awfully lonely

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:36:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
> > similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get 
> different 
> > answers 
> > 
> > Edgar 
>
> Perhaps the "similar thing" is a mere reflection of the observers 
> observing. 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
not, we are trying to find the truth

First, note you don't actually have to calculate anything. A and C just 
compare clocks when they meet and that gives the actual world line lengths.

But, if you want to calculate to predict what that comparison will be, then 
you have to be careful to do it correctly.

C can't just use the Pythagorean theorem on A's world line from his 
perspective on the x and y distances, he has to use it on the time 
dimension as well squareroot((y2-y1)^2 + (x2-x1)^2 - c(t2-t1)^2). It is the 
subtraction of this time term that will reduce the length of the slanting 
blue lines of A and B to THEIR PROJECTIONS ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE.

I think that is what you are saying as well, but my point is that that 
NULLIFIES any effect on the length of the world lines by the SLANTING of 
the blue lines NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LENGTHS, and LEAVES ONLY the effects of 
the red curves.

This must be the case because NON-accelerated relative motion DOES NOT 
affect proper time rates. This is because it is exactly the same from the 
perspective of A and C moving relative to each other, thus it cannot affect 
the lengths of their world lines.

I'm trying to parse your last paragraph. Your diagram shows ONLY how A's 
and B's world lines appear in C's comoving frame. It does NOT show the 
proper LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines. I think we agree the lengths 
depicted are NOT the actual world line lengths.

I claim the blue slanting lines of A and B, one set longer than the other, 
have NO EFFECT on the actual lengths of A's and B's world lines. Because 
when we calculate just their proper lengths subtracting the time term as I 
do above, their proper lengths reduce to their VERTICAL PROJECTIONS on C's 
vertical world line. In other words there is no difference in proper time 
rates of A, B or C during the intervals of the slanting blue lines.

Thus, in my view, we are left with ONLY the effects of the curving red 
accelerations, and these are exactly the same for A and B. And when the 
lengths of those red acceleration segments are calculated we find that A's 
and B's world lines will both be SHORTER than C's world line AND by the 
SAME AMOUNT and that A's and B's world line lengths will be EQUAL due only 
to their equal accelerations.


Perhaps to make this clearer consider just two blue lines of A and B 
slanted with respect to each other and crossing at P. From A's perspective 
B's line will be slanted, but from B's perspective A's line will be slanted 
in the other direction by an equal amount AND since this is NON-accelerated 
inertial motion only, both views are EQUALLY VALID. When we do the 
Pythagorean world line length calculation we get EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS 
from both frame views. So both world line lengths are exactly equal.

Thus slanted blue lines of ANY LENGTH have NO EFFECT AT ALL on world line 
lengths, and only curved red line accelerations do.

If you disagree I can give you another example.

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:26:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the 
> typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>
> E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A&
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different 
answers

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> > observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> > accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> > would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> > actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> > minds work... 
>
> How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> more less similar to each other? 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the 
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?

E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks 
longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?

Edgar





On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your 
> posts.
>
> I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would 
> argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to 
> the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you 
> claim.
>
> The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus 
> the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line 
> according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock 
> which is what this diagram shows.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "the length according to C's 
> clock"--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis, 
> 2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and 
> obviously the coordinate time between "2000" at the bottom of the diagram 
> and "2020" at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking 
> about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the "length" of any 
> particular path. But you can also use C's 
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption.

There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
from what we can observe. That is true.

But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space 
because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an 
empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
internal models of it.

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:08:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
>> discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
>> reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
>>
>> But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
>> When you do you don't get solipsism.
>>
>> If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
>> MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
>> to my theories but to all science
>>
>
> That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say "we never 
> directly observe X" to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make 
> ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular 
> fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we 
> do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses.
>
> Hence you can't start from the basis that...
>
> "Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. 
> We NEVER observe such an empty space. "
>
> ...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations.
>
> Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't 
> exist (assuming it doesn't).
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
minds work...

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All, 
>>
>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>  
>
>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>   
>
> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
> explanation.
>
> Brent
>
>   
>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>  
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.

But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
When you do you don't get solipsism.

If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
to my theories but to all science

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>
> The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your 
posts.

I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would 
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to 
the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you 
claim.

The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus 
the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line 
according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock 
which is what this diagram shows.

So to calculate the length of A's and B's world lines in C's frame (which 
this diagram represents) we must take the apparent lengths as shown from 
C's frame view on the diagram, and SHORTEN each section by the apparent 
slowing of ITS CLOCK relative to C's CLOCK.

In other words, the proper time LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines will NOT 
be as they appear in this diagram which displays their apparent length's 
relative to C's proper clock. To get the actual length we have to use the 
readings of A's and B's clock and shorten their apparent lengths by that 
amount.

When we do this all the blue segments of A's and B's world lines become 
parallel to C's and thus add no length to A's or B's world lines. This is 
what we would expect since the pure NON-accelerated relative motion of the 
blue segments doesn't add length to a world line.

So when we subtract the apparent length differences of the blue lines all 
we are left with is the red ones which are equal.

Thus the actual LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines are equal. And the only 
effects which add length to world lines are in fact accelerations as I 
claimed.

The point is that the TRAJECTORIES in spacetime of world lines from some 
frame like C's in this diagram do NOT properly represent the invariant 
LENGTHS of those world lines. Because to get the invariant proper time 
length we must shorten those trajectories by the apparent clock slowing 
along it to get the actual proper clock interval from start to finish.

So when we do this we find that the different LENGTHS of world lines 
between any two spacetime points are due ONLY TO ACCELERATIONS OR 
GRAVITATION as I previously stated. 

Do you agree?


Edgar




On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:01:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to 
>> acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing 
>> I was?
>>
>> Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included 
>> this except in response to your own Troll obsession.)
>>
>> Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest 
>> scientific answer for a change if you can... OK?
>>
>> It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they 
>> care to chime in..
>>
>
>
> In the case of the traditional twin paradox where one accelerates between 
> meetings while the other does not, the one that accelerates always has the 
> greater path length through spacetime, so in this case they are logically 
> equivalent. But you can have a case in SR (no gravity) where two observers 
> have identical accelerations (i.e. each acceleration lasts the same 
> interval of proper time and involves the same proper acceleration 
> throughout this interval), but because different proper times elapse 
> *between* these accelerations, they end up with worldlines with different 
> path lengths between their meetings (and thus different elapsed aging)...in 
> an online discussion a while ago someone drew a diagram of such a case that 
> I saved on my website:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg
>
> In this example A and B have identical red acceleration phases, but A will 
> have aged less than B when they reunite (you can ignore the worldline of C, 
> who is inertial and naturally ages more than either of them).
>
> You can also have cases in SR where twin A accelerates "more" than B 
> (defined in terms of the amount of proper time spent accelerating, or the 
> value of the proper acceleration experienced during this time, or both), 
> but B has aged less than A when they reunite, rather than vice versa. As 
> always the correct aging is calculated by looking at the overall path 
> through spacetime in some coordinate system, and calculating its "length" 
> (proper time) with an equation that's analogous to the one you'd use to 
> calculate the spatial length of a path on a 2D plane.
>
> Jesse
>

-- 
You rece

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational 
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute 
the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is 
CORRECT, and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary 
computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...

You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must conform 
to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it does or not 
because you never say anything about physics. You only discuss math and 
philosophy

This is a big big difference.

Edgar




On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
>
> In which theory?
>
> In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the 
> "actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of emptiness.
>
> In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0), s(s(0))), 
> ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient fiction to sum up 
> infinities of arithmetical relation below our substitution level, making 
> the sharing of our most probable computations sharable.
>
>
>
>
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
> never observations of empty space itself.
>
> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
> is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>
> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, 
>
>
>
> Define "occur".
>
>
>
> and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of 
> space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
> within.
>
> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. 
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>
>
> Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say if you 
> use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post, Church, Kleene, 
> or ... in which sense?
>
> If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some amount 
> of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a plateau, as the 
> sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny part of the whole 
> arithmetical reality) provides a computational space.
>
> Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time, space, 
> and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time immaterial 
> ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description in terms of 
> "block universal machine landscape".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
> the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
> logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
>
>
>
> It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.
>
>
>
>
> and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
> rather than a pre-existing background to them...
>
>
> Dimensionality, and time.
>
> Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by the 
> universal numbers. 
>
>
>
>
> Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
> information computations 
>
>
> if only we could knew what you mean by that.
>
>
>
> encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all quantum 
> paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of Quantum randomness.
>
>
> You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in the 
> Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on arithmetic, 
> and this is testable, and already partially tested. 
>
>
>
>
>
> But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
> tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
> be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Edgar L. Owen]

All, re global warming

Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge 
threat

Oceanographers believe that Antarctica‘s oceanic waters, which are turning 
from briny to fresh in recent decades, are causing the shutdown of the 
Southern Ocean’s coldest, deepest currents.The cold currents, called the 
Antarctic 
Bottom Water, are basically cold, briny, underwater rivers flowing from the 
underwater edge of the Antarctic continent north toward the equator, very 
close to the seafloor. They carry oxygen, carbon, and many nutrients to the 
depths of the ocean, and play a huge role in the survival of creatures 
which live close to the seafloor. It has already been shown in the past 
years that the effects of this current are shrinking, but it was unclear if 
this is a man-caused, or if it is simply a natural process.

This new study concludes that Antarctica’s changing climate is to blame for 
the shrinking Antarctica Bottom Water. Here’s what happens, at a very basic 
level: we’re dealing with a global warming situation. The higher 
temperatures cause ice to melt, and they also cause increased 
precipitations (both rain and snow) in the Antarctic areas. The melting 
glaciers and precipitation bring a massive influx of sweet water which 
slowly replaces the briny, oceanic water in the area. Since the fresh and 
briny water have different densities and somewhat different chemical 
properties, this prevents the currents from taking their normal course.

“Deep ocean waters only mix directly to the surface in a few small regions 
of the global ocean, so this has effectively shut one of the main conduits 
for deep-ocean heat to escape,” said Casimir de Lavergne, an oceanographer 
at McGill University in Montreal.

The key part of the chain here are polynyas – natural holes surrounded by 
sea ice. These persistent regions of open water form when upwellings of 
warm ocean water keep water temperatures above freezing, acting pretty much 
like natural refrigerators – they absorb the cold temperatures, the water 
gets colder (higher density), and drops to the bottom, sending hotter water 
in its stead, creating a current.

But as Antarctica’s water freshened, fewer and fewer polynyas appeared – 
specifically because freshwater is less dense, and even if it gets colder, 
it doesn’t sink to the bottom. It acts like a lid, sealing off the current 
and shutting down oceanic circulation.

“What we suggest is, the change in salinity of the surface water makes them 
so light that even very strong cooling is not sufficient to make them dense 
enough to sink,” de Lavergne told ZME Science. “Mixing them gets harder and 
harder.”

De Lavergne cautioned that the heat-storage effect is localized to the 
Antarctica area, and it’s not connected to the so-called global warming 
“hiatus” – the observed slowing down of global warming, even with increased 
energies in the system.

“Our study is still a hypothesis,” he added. “We say that climate change is 
preventing convection from happening, but we do not know how frequent it 
was in the past, so that’s a big avenue for future research.”

However, even as just a hypothesis, this is a worrying conclusion; oceanic 
anoxia is not a laughing matter, and it’s just another evidence that this 
global warming we are causing has significant and sometimes unexpected 
effects all around the world.

Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge threat is 
a post from ZME Science. (c) ZME Science - All Rights Reserved.


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:48:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 12:42, John Mikes > wrote:
>
>> LizR wrote 3-2-14:
>>
>> *(JM:*
>>
>>> *Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's 
>>> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.* )
>>>
>> *Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's 
>> knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do *
>> *anything?! (L)*
>>
>> "Look at the problem" is quite diffeent from "*settling it* by today's 
>> knowledge & means.
>> We may "anticipate" tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a 
>> grain of salt. 
>>
>> You said "set" the first time, not "settle". (And you put it in quotes 
> for some reason.) Maybe you could try explaining yourself well enough that 
> I know what I'm answering? It *sounds* like you're fulminating against 
> "do-gooders" who are trying to solve problems using the tools they have to 
> hand, and saying that they are going about it the wrong way - but maybe you 
> meant something completely different?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@g

Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
never observations of empty space itself.

Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
relationships mandated by conservation laws.

But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and they 
are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space based on 
these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from particulate 
interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur within.

So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a 
computational structure rather than a physical structure.

This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
rather than a pre-existing background to them...


Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key 
to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the 
source of Quantum randomness.


But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
challenge!
:-)

Edgar

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of 
whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that single person 
first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno? 
That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a whole panel of 
judges to approve it, and the whole panel to reject it.

Edgar




On Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:58:55 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Ghibbsa and Bruno, 
> > 
> > Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper 
> didn't 
> > really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error 
> > discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just 
> unwarranted 
> > assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real 
> universe? 
>
> If it were any of these, then Le Monde would publish a formal 
> retraction, which would indicate that the prize was awarded, and then 
> subsequently withdrawn, along with the reasons for the withdrawal. 
>
> Instead, the award to Bruno Marchal is not mentioned at all: 
>
>
> http://www.lemonde.fr/kiosque/recherche/laureats/prix-recherche-laureats.html 
>
> > I 
> > also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical 
> > usually politics itself won't be able to trump that. 
>
> Exactly. Even if you don't believe Bruno about being awarded le Prix 
> Le Monde, it shouldn't matter, as whether or not he was awarded a 
> prize makes no difference as to whether his ideas are correct. To 
> argues otherwise is the fallacious argument from authority. 
>
> Nevertheless, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy of the original 
> lists of Laureats, as it appeared on 9th of August 2001: 
>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010809221720/http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html
>  
>
> I think Bruno is correct that something nefarious occurred. 
>
> > 
> > So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the 
> > other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your 
> > theory's paper was revoked? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> The other side of the story has never been made public. You can read 
> all about Bruno's side of the story in The Amoeba's Secret, now in English 
> for 
> the first time. 
>
> My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno 
> started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in 
> itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most 
> seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured 
> badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because 
> Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own 
> research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something 
> similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno 
> faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain 
> appalling by anyone's standard. 
>
> As to what actually happened with le Prix Le Monde - its possible 
> nobody will ever know. All we have are Bruno's suspicions. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME 
VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.

What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. 
Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close those 
proper times are to being equal. Once that's done we have the whole 
picture. We DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE FRAME VIEWS OF THOSE FRAME VIEWS because we 
already have ALL the frame views of that one situation.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 5:01:10 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from 
>> +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over 
>> them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
>>
>
>
> There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite 
> sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined 
> over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can 
> be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result 
> will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you 
> can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a 
> uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to 
> a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution 
> when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference 
> frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start.
>
> 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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will 
be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of 
any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think 
they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will certainly give us 
an EXACT value for the difference in proper times between A and B and I 
think it will be possible to compare those in a meaningful way to see how 
they cluster WITHOUT weighting them.

In any case this is a peripheral though interesting subject..

Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed 
> simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes.
>
>
> But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocit
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame 
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY 
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we 
know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in 
the same inertial frame OR undergo symmetric accelerations. 

Same ages is just a way to ensure synchronized clocks at the birth event 
and make examples simpler. It has nothing to do with p-time synchrony per 
se.

So in your next paragraph your and Jimbo's proper clocks ARE synchronized 
in p-time from then on under the conditions stated.

But I don't understand the rest of your example since you just stated that 
we are to ignore their PREVIOUS and SUBSEQUENT acceleration histories to 
preserve the synchronies but then you start giving an example with 
accelerations, which will obviously change their synchrony UNLESS they are 
symmetric. You seem to claim that the accelerations are symmetric but you 
keep describing them as stopping in different frames at different times 
which indicates they are NOT symmetric.

The only way to ensure the accelerations are symmetric is for both A and B 
to have the same proper accelerations at the same proper times AFTER they 
synchronize clocks. Are you doing that? If not you are not using MY method.

Also you seem to be switching from synchronized proper clocks which I 
assumed did NOT reflect actual ages to ACTUAL AGES which doesn't work.

I used actual ages synchronized at birth (twins) to avoid that kind of 
misunderstanding.

Edgar

 





On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:23:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't 
> represent my method OR results.
>
> In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and 
> direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and 
> direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B 
> and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my 
> result.
>
> Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same 
> and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D 
> are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is 
> clearly transitive between all 4 parties.
>
>
>
> You earlier agreed that if two observers are at rest relative to each 
> other, then if they synchronize clocks in their rest frame, their clocks 
> will also be synchronized in p-time from then on. In your post at 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48404.htmlyou
>  responded to
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to 
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing 
I was?

Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this 
except in response to your own Troll obsession.)

Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest 
scientific answer for a change if you can... OK?

It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care 
to chime in..

Edgar


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:56:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY 
>> causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age 
>> rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them 
>> when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.
>>
>
> Having your worldlines be different lengths in spacetime will also cause 
> differences in actual age, as Brent has explained (with diagrams).
>
> Consistently ignoring this point and others like it is one reason most 
> people here consider you a troll, so please try to address it.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Edgar L. Owen]

Ghibbsa and Bruno,

Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't 
really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error 
discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted 
assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real universe? I 
also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical 
usually politics itself won't be able to trump that.

So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the 
other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your 
theory's paper was revoked?

Thanks,
Edgar


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:29:46 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. 
>>
>> Best, 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
> Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes 
that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate 
changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when 
they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.

Relativity agrees on this when the parties MEET. All my method does is to 
give a method to calculate these real actual changes BEFORE they meet, when 
the parties are still separated or in relative motion or acceleration or 
gravitation.

This is incredibly simple to understand if you can just escape the notion 
that all VIEWS of an age relationship are somehow the same as the ACTUAL 
relationship itself. The views DO differ and these VIEWS ARE VALID VIEWS, 
but they don't affect the actual RELATIONSHIP THEY ARE VIEWING which is 
what my method calculates.

Again, this is a difference in INTERPRETATIONS of relativity. It does NOT 
contradict the equations of relativity itself. It simply uses the one that 
describes the actual relationship rather than ones that describe VIEWS of 
that relationship.

Aren't you at least able to understand what I'm saying even if you don't 
agree with it? I see no evidence you are even able to do that

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>
> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow 
> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster 
> around m
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed 
simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. Or you 
could equally integrate over the continuous functions. 

Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view 
(at the standard intervals as above) gives and see how they cluster. Which 
I'm pretty sure will be around my result.

You don't need to view the resulting graph from any frame as you seem to 
suggest, because the graph is OF the actual all frame view results.

For every frame you simply calculate the apparent lack of simultaneity 
between two events Nonsiimultaneity=(t1-t2) and plot it relative to the 
simultaneity that my method claims is actual.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>
> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow 
> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster 
> around m
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't 
represent my method OR results.

In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and 
direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and 
direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B 
and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my 
result.

Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same and 
they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D are 
the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is clearly 
transitive between all 4 parties.

We don't know what t1 and t2 are because you haven't specified their 
acceleration histories or birth dates, but whatever they are the equation 
above will hold.

The problem is that your careful analysis simply DOES NOT use MY method 
which depends on the actual real physical causes (acceleration histories) 
to deternine 1:1 age correlations between any two observers. It uses YOUR 
method to prove the standard lack of simultaneity between VIEWS of pairs of 
actual physical events. This is a WELL KNOWN result of relativity WITH 
WHICH I AGREE!

But for the nth time, my method concentrates on the ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, 
rather than VIEWS of that actual relationship.

This is a simple, well accepted logical distinction which most certainly 
applies here to the ACTUAL age correlations of people..

If a man and a wife love each other that is a real actual physical 
relationship. The fact that someone else thinks they don't love each other 
may well be his real VIEW, but it does NOT change or affect the ACTUAL love 
between the man and his wife.

No matter how many times I state this it doesn't seem to sink in

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:36:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any 
> contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
>
>
> No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that 
> different pairs of readings are simultaneous using ASSUMPTION 2. If you 
> agreed with those, I would show that several further pairs of readings must 
> also be judged simultaneous in p-time using ASSUMPTION 1, and then all 
> these individual simultaneity judgments would together lead to a 
> contradiction via the transitivity assumption, ASSUMPTION 3. I already laid 
> this out in the original Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart post, but since you 
> apparently didn't understand that post I wanted to go over everything more 
> carefully with the exact x(t) and T(t) functions given, and every point 
> about simultaneity stated more carefully.
>
> I thought you would be more likely to answer if I just gave you two 
> statements to look over and verify rather than a large collection of them, 
> but if you are going to stubbornly refuse to answer the opening questions 
> until I lay out the whole argument, here it is in full: ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.

What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, 
but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my 
results for any distance and motion difference pairs. In other words there 
would be a lot more views that were close to my solution, than views that 
were far from my solution. And that we can see this because, as you 
yourself pointed out, as distance separation and relative motion 
differences decrease all other frame views DO tend to converge on my 
results.

Thus the aggregate WEIGHT OF ALL VIEWS tends to converge on my solution, 
which is what I meant to say. Sort of like a Bell curve distribution with a 
point at top representing my solution

Would you agree to that?

Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:00:19 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Here's another point for you to ponder:
>>
>> You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the 
>> weighted mean of all frame views is?
>>
>
> Weighted how? I can't see any "weighing" that doesn't itself depend on 
> privileging one frame over others. For example, suppose I label frames 
> using velocity relative to my rest frame, and use a uniform distribution on 
> velocity values as my weight function, which implies that the collection of 
> frames with velocities between 0.1c and 0.1c + dV will have the same total 
> weight as the collection of frames with velocities between 0.9c and 0.9c + 
> dV, since these are equal-sized velocity intervals (for example, if 
> dV=0.05c then we are looking at the frames from 0.1c to 0.15c, and the 
> frames from 0.9c to 0.95c). But if we look at all the frames in these two 
> intervals, and translate from their velocities relative to ME to their 
> velocities relative to another frame B that is moving at say 0.8c relative 
> to me, then these two bunches of frames do NOT occupy equal-sized velocity 
> intervals when we look at their velocities relative to frame B (an interval 
> from 0.1c to 0.15c in my frame translates to the interval from -0.761c to 
> -0.739c in B's frame, while an interval of 0.9c to 0.95c in my frame 
> translates to an interval from 0.357c to 0.625c in B's frame). So if we 
> "weigh" them equally using MY velocity labels, that would translate to an 
> unequal weighing relative to B's velocity labels, so we are privileging my 
> frame's definitions over the definitions of other frames like B.
>
>
>  
>
>> I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from 
>> your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as separation and 
>> relative motion diminishes, so I strongly suspect it converges towards my 
>> solution in all cases.
>>
>> Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my 
>> solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though 
>> I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this 
>> correlation...
>>
>> In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction 
>> representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If 
>> we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the 
>> actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their 
>> weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution?
>>
>
> This doesn't really help your case unless you can find a "weight" function 
> for the continuous infinity of different possible frames that doesn't 
> itself privilege one frame's definitions from the start.
>
> 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Well, I guess for someone who thinks "plants love music" and that the basic 
postulates of arithmetic somehow magically generates the entire universe 
including the flow of time, it seems logical to claim that Edgar does't 
answer questions without actually counting the number of questions I have 
and haven't answered compared to the others on this group.

If you had any understanding of empirical evidence and scientific method 
you would quickly arrive at the correct conclusion that none of these 3 
postulates are true. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to 
happen!

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:32:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Mar 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>
> > I only insult people who insult me first, 
>
> No. You have insulted many people a long time before they react to the   
> insult. You arrive in a list, and you don't seem to have follow any   
> previous thread. people suggested you to read the UDA, which makes   
> your statement incompatible with computationalism, but it remains   
> unclear if your statements fit or not with computationalism, as you   
> don't define the term "computation" that you are using. 
>
>
>
> > which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me   
> > as "a Troll". 
>
> That was not an insult, but a question related to your way to insult   
> people, and of never addressing their question, except by mocking them   
> with an insulting tone. 
>
>
>
> > If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. 
> > 
> > If you don't I certainly won't. OK? 
>
> Tell us your assumption clearly. Tell us what you mean by   
> "computational", and this without invoking some "reality", as   
> computation, like most usable concept, is defined independently of any   
> ontology, except for some infinite set of finitely specifiable objects   
> (like strings, numbers, combinators, programs, ...). 
>
> A computation is what a computer do. You said that "reality computes".   
> Are you saying that "reality" is a computer? Is it a mathematical   
> c...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Here's another point for you to ponder:

You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the 
weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges 
towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does 
converge to my solution as separation and relative motion diminishes, so I 
strongly suspect it converges towards my solution in all cases.

Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my 
solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though 
I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this 
correlation...

In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction 
representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If 
we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the 
actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their 
weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution?

Edgar


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>
>
> 
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any 
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?

But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method 
because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame 
views of the parties of their OWN age relationships.

So whatever proof you think you have, it is not a proof about my method.

So, in spite of what you claim you just seem to be trying to prove there is 
no simultaneity of VIEWS of age relationships rather than addressing the 
ACTUAL age relationships of the parties themselves which is my whole point.

Edgar

.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>  
>> I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than 
>> the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about 
>> p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are:
>>
>> ASSUMPTION 1. If two observers are at rest in the same inertial frame, 
>> then events on their worldlines that are simultaneous in their rest frame 
>> are also simultaneous in p-time
>>
>> ASSUMPTION 2. If two observers cross paths at a single point in spacetime 
>> P, and observer #1's proper time at P is T1 while observer #2's proper time 
>> at P is T2, then the event of observer #1's clock showing T1 is 
>> simultaneous in p-time with the event of observer #2's clock showing T2.
>>
>> ASSUMPTION 3. p-time simultaneity is transitive
>>
>> That's it! I make no other assumptions about p-time simultaneity. But if 
>> you want to actually see how the contradiction is derived, there's really 
>> no shortcut besides looking at the math. If you are willing to do that, can 
>> we just start with the last 2 questions I asked about the scenario? Here's 
>> what I asked again, with a few cosmetic modifications:
>>
>> Please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), 
>> coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time 
>> as a function of coordinate time, for each observer (expressed using the 
>> inertial frame where A and B are at rest, and C and D are moving at 0.8c), 
>> and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements:
>>
>> For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t
>> For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t
>> For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t
>> For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12
>>
>> --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass 
>> through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) 
>> functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, 
>> and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by 
>> ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of B's proper time clock reading T=0 is 
>> simultaneous in p-time with the event of C's proper time clock reading T=0. 
>> Agree or disagree?
>>
>> --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass 
>> through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their 
>> T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those 
>> coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, 
>> by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of A's proper time clock reading T=20 is 
>> simultaneous in p-time with the event of D's proper time clock reading T=0. 
>> Agree or disagree?
>>
>
> Another little correction--in the last two paragraphs there, where I said 
> "Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above", I should have written "ASSUMPTION 2", 
> since in both cases I was deriving p-time simultaneity from the fact that 
> two clock readings happened at the same point in spacetime.
>
> 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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in 
a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame 
is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it 
expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is transitive 
among all observers, AND is the exact same method that gives the correct 
answer WHEN A AND B MEET and everyone, even you, agrees on the 1:1 age 
correlation.

Our disagreement over choice of frames is spinning its wheels and not 
getting anywhere. It's a matter of how to INTERPRET relativity, rather than 
relativity itself. And I have given very convincing reasons why a 
privileged frame that preserves the actual physical facts that affect age 
changes is appropriate. You just don't agree with them.

As to your example claiming to prove my method leads to a contradiction, 
just give me the bottom line, a simple synopsis. I don't have the time to 
wade through a detailed example only to find the only disagreement is over 
choice of frames again.

On the other hand if you ASSUME privileged frames the way I do and think my 
method of using them leads to a contradiction that isn't just another 
disagreement over choice of frames that were assumed, then give me a simple 
example, the simplest you can come up with.

Edgar


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:37:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way 
> for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by 
> any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation.
>
> If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each 
> other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B 
> immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age 
> reading attached.
>
> Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's 
> CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round 
> trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between 
> his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use 
> the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT 
> have to synchronize the signals to do this.
>
>
> This is a valid method for determining what ages are simultaneous in the 
> inertial frame where they are both at rest. But there is no basis in 
> relativity for judging this frame's views on simultaneity to be any more 
> valid than another frame's.
>  
>
>
> This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any 
> distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each 
> other. 
>
>
> Again, you present no argument for why this is the "single correct" 
> correlation, you just assert it.
>
>  
>
>
> Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE 
> CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can 
> determine exactly what that correlation is. 
>
> Do you agree?
>
>
>
> No. You already agreed in an earlier post that for an inertial observer to 
> label the frame where they are at rest as "their own frame" is purely a 
> matter of HUMAN CONVENTION, not an objective reality that is forced on them 
> by nature. So even if we ignore these "other observers", there is nothing 
> stopping A and B from using a different convention to define "their own 
> frame", such as the inertial frame where they both have a velocity of 0.99c 
> along the x-axis.
>
>  
>
>
> I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it 
> differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR 
> BUSINESS!
>
>
> Again, you are conflating observers with frames, even though you earlier 
> acknowledged that any link between particular observers and particular 
> frames is just a matter of convention.
>
>  
>
>
>
> I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time...
>
>
> OK, thanks. Please prioritize my latest post discussing the scenario with 
> A/B and C/D and statement #1 vs. statement #2, since it seems that your 
> original argument for an "error" in my analysis was based on falsely 
> imagining I was asserting statement #1 rather than statement #2. Since the 
> analysis really only depends on #2 which you seem to agree with, I would 
> like to proceed with the analysis of this scenario to see if you can find 
> any other reason to object  to any other ste

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

First thanks for your comment. 

I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age 
relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it 
in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship. 
Though Jesse would probably disagree.

The current discussion is about choice of frames though. Check my latest 
post for a synopsis of one case..

Edgar



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>  
>  
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse, 
>>
>>  You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
>>
>>  1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper 
>> age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages 
>> are "simultaneous" in the sense that they must reach the same age 
>> simultaneously).
>>
>>  2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in 
>> spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is 
>> T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with 
>> C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they 
>> must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are 
>> different)
>>
>>  
>>  First I assume that by "passing through the same point in spacetime" 
>> you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational 
>> definition of no light delay.
>>
>>  1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would 
>> have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case 
>> they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise.
>>  
>   
> This isn't true.  In the inertial frame of a third party passing by, B and 
> C age at different rates in different segments of their world lines even 
> though those rates integrate to the same total aging between their two 
> meetings.
>
> 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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way 
for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by 
any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation.

If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each 
other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B 
immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age 
reading attached.

Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's 
CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round 
trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between 
his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use 
the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT 
have to synchronize the signals to do this.

This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any 
distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each 
other. 

Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE 
CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can 
determine exactly what that correlation is. 

Do you agree?

I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it 
differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR 
BUSINESS!


I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time...

Edgar



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
>
> 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age 
> at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are 
> "simultaneous" in the sense that they must reach the same age 
> simultaneously).
>
> 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime 
> P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when 
> she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being 
> at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach 
> those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different)
>
>
> First I assume that by "passing through the same point in spacetime" you 
> mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational 
> definition of no light delay.
>
> 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have 
> the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they 
> have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise.
>
> 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they 
> simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT 
> POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration 
> differences either before or after.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clear answer. So now you hopefully see that you must 
> retract your claim that there's an "error" in my comments about the 
> scenario with the two pairs of twins A/B and C/D, since I never asserted 
> anything remotely resembling #1, my point about ages that occur at the same 
> point in spacetime being simultaneous in p-time referred SOLELY to #2.
>
> Now, can you please address the follow-up questions that I asked you to 
> address if you did agree with #2? I will requote them below:
>
> 'On the other hand, if you would answer "no, statement #2 is not in error, 
> I agree that in this case T1 and T2 are simultaneous in absolute terms", 
> then please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), 
> coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time 
> as a function of coordinate time, for each observer, and then tell me if 
> you agree or disagree with the following two statements:
>
> For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t
> For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t
> For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t
> For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12
>
> --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass 
> through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) 
> functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, 
> and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or disagree?
>
> --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass 
> through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their 
> T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those 
> coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or 
> d

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier 
today and yesterday by referring to me as "a Troll". If you insult someone 
you should expect to receive the same.

If you don't I certainly won't. OK?

Edgar

 

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
>
> On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to 
> claim "some plants love music" is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that 
> demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.
>
> Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH 
> WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind.
>
> Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO 
> evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with 
> any for "plants love music".
>
>
> About plants loving music, you take my words far too much seriously, and 
> you have already acknowledge that your theory implies comp, so that you 
> should learn its consequences, which makes your point possibly consistent 
> with an internal view of the "block mindscape" of the universal Turing 
> machine (computer in the mathematical sense). (but it makes it definitely 
> inconsistent as reified "reality").
>
> Don't infer from that that I would be certain that some plants don't love 
> music, as I am too much ignorant for that. But their behavior is amazing, 
> notably on larger scale. 
>
>
>
> Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do?
> :-)
>
>
> Only a troll can add a smiley to an insult, I think. 
>
> I mean that you know that we are *seriously* asking ourself if you are not 
> a troll.
>
> In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori 
> assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories 
> by making clear the assumptions. 
>
> I will comment your posts only if I got them. And without them I will 
> eventually put you in the spam list, if you insist on the boring insulting 
> strategy.
>
> I think you convince no one on this list. 
> You loose. 
> Come back when better prepared. 
> Just give us a link with your assumptions, and mode of reasoning. 
> Stop insulting us.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR  wrote:
>>
>> Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression 
>> that "Carmina Burana" is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, 
>> not 3?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe I missed the point. I am not "musical" (except that I like 
>> listening to music).
>>
>>
>>
>> You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O 
>> Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to 
>> the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... 
>>
>> I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting 
>> because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what 
>> I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with 
>> such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other 
>> (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of 
>> circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis 
>> the magic of the numbers.
>>
>> Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are 
>> something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. 
>>
>>
>> The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p 
>> notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p 
>> notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk,  when 
>> distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and 
>> taking into account many intensional combinations.
>>
>> By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a 
>> dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise 
>> or on too rocky music.
>>
>> If interested here is a video on plant's mind:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexs&list=WL20F101EB06378011
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>>

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.

1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age 
at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are 
"simultaneous" in the sense that they must reach the same age 
simultaneously).

2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime 
P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when 
she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being 
at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach 
those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different)


First I assume that by "passing through the same point in spacetime" you 
mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational 
definition of no light delay.

1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have 
the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they 
have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise.

2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they 
simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT 
POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration 
differences either before or after.

There are two equivalent ways they can confirm their actual 1:1 age 
correlations in both (all cases) when they cross paths.

First they can directly observe this 1:1 correlation by simply looking at 
each other's clocks as they pass. Normally this is not possible if two 
observers have relative motion with respect to each other, but in this case 
there is no time delay and the looking only takes a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME, 
so even though the time RATES of each other's proper clocks are dilated in 
each other's frames, each can still actually read the correct proper time 
on the other's clock as they cross.

(One might initially think it is impossible to read each others' clocks 
correctly due to the dilation of relative motion, or even if they passed 
with different accelerations, but this is not true in the case where they 
read as they cross. Each proper clock is ALWAYS reading the actual proper 
age. The apparent dilation effect is just due to the longer interval it 
takes for signals from that clock to reach the observer. But the signals 
received always display the real and actual proper age of the clock WHEN 
the signals were sent. So in the crossing case where there is only a single 
signal with NO time delay the clock reading received = the actual clock 
reading when the signal was sent.

Note that this analysis points out that all proper clocks continually show 
the actual proper age of the clock when the signal was sent. So that real 
actual age is REALLY OUT THERE. Your imaginary 1:1 correlation problem just 
doesn't take into proper account the transmission time from the clock to 
the receiver. Just subtract the transmission time and you will get the 
actual 1:1 age correlation between when any proper age signal was sent and 
what proper time it was received.)

Second they CAN CONFIRM the actual age correlation in ALL cases simply by 
exchanging light messages as they cross telling each other their actual 
ages which is an equivalent method. As they cross the light signal has no 
appreciable delay so whatever actual age they report will correlate to the 
actual age the other receives the signal.

In this way crossing observers CAN UNambiguously determine the 1:1 
correlation of their actual ages even if they are in relative motion.

With this understanding your 1. is true of symmetric cases, and 2. is true 
of all cases...

Edgar






On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:19:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.
>
> The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A 
> CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers.
>
> The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that 
> it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion.
>
> I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves 
> the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age 
> rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views 
> irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes 
> of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your 
> method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases.
>
>
> Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, 
> Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous 
> and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observ

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to 
claim "some plants love music" is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that 
demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality.

Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH 
WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind.

Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence 
at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for 
"plants love music".

Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do?
:-)

Edgar

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR > wrote:
>
> Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression 
> that "Carmina Burana" is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, 
> not 3?
>
>
>
> Maybe I missed the point. I am not "musical" (except that I like listening 
> to music).
>
>
>
> You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O 
> Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to 
> the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... 
>
> I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting 
> because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what 
> I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with 
> such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other 
> (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of 
> circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis 
> the magic of the numbers.
>
> Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are 
> something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. 
>
>
> The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p 
> notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p 
> notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk,  when 
> distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and 
> taking into account many intensional combinations.
>
> By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a 
> dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise 
> or on too rocky music.
>
> If interested here is a video on plant's mind:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexs&list=WL20F101EB06378011
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> K
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> 
>
> Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
>
> Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au 
> Mobile:   0450 963 719
> Landline: 02 9389 4239
> Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
>
> "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain
>
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.

The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION 
OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers.

The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that 
it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion.

I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves 
the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age 
rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views 
irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes 
of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your 
method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases.


Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart 
example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and 
transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers?


To address your new questions:

Do you deny acceleration and gravitation produce real actual slowings of 
clock rates and thus of real actual aging rates? Of course we can VIEW 
these slowings differently from different frames, but the ACTUAL effects 
they produce on the observer who experiences them are exact. It is these 
exact actual effects that my method explains, and yours doesn't. We know 
these effects are real and actual when twins meet up with different ages. 
Thus we know they were ALSO REAL AND ACTUAL BEFORE the twins met. That is 
pure simple logic.

How many times do I have to explain. The twins exchange flight plans for 
EXACT SAME ACCLERATIONS AT THE EXACT SAME TIMES before they part. This 
ABSOLUTELY ENSURES that their age rates will slow EXACTLY THE SAME during 
their trip. There is no way around that. Another observer can VIEW that 
differently but from the POV of the twins themselves it IS EXACT AND 
ABSOLUTE. Thus it is clear to anyone that to properly analyze the REAL 
ACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE TWINS' AGES WE MUST PRESERVE THE REAL ACTUAL 
RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACCELERATIONS THAT ARE THE ONLY CAUSE OF AGE RATE 
CHANGES.

Jeez, how difficult is that to understand? And your different frame to 
exchange flight plans in is an oxymoron because it would make their actual 
symmetric flight plans appear to be NON symmetric. Only a pair of idiots 
would do that

You are just endlessly repeating what you read in some relativity textbook 
without using simple logic to determine its proper application

Edgar







On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:51:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> No, it was you that said there was NO correlation.
>
>
> Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just 
> got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I 
> explained that this was because I was using "correlation" in the way YOU 
> had consistently been using it up until now, to refer to a 1:1 correlation 
> in which each proper age of a twin is matched up to one unique proper age 
> of the other twin. The archive at 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/ has a 
> better search function than google's archive (returning individual posts 
> rather than threads), so I searched for posts from Edgar L. Owen with 
> "correlate" or "correlation" in them, results here:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=everything-list%40googlegroups.com&haswords=correlate&from=Edgar+L.+Owen¬words=&subject=&datewithin=1d&date=&order=datenewest&search=Search
>  
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=everything-list%40googlegroups.com&haswords=correlation&from=Edgar+L.+Owen¬words=&subject=&datewithin=1d&date=&order=datenewest&search=Search
>
> Earliest posts on the "block time" thread I could find in these searches 
> (that were directed at me, and not some other poster) were these from Feb. 
> 12 and 13 (shown in order below), where you can see from the quotes that 
> you were talking specifically about 1:1 correlations that map clock times 
> of one to specific clock times of the other:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48613.html
>
> "So all observers are always in the same p-time moment. Now it's just a 
> matter of correlating their clock times to see which clock times occurred 
> in any particular current moment of p-time."
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48716.html
>
> "Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock 
> time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correl

Re: An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

The 'results' and the 'everything' are the actual information state of the 
universe. There is NO separate storage of anything other than the current 
information state of the universe. The current information state of the 
universe is continually being computed by the computations. 

No, it does NOT assume the existence of particles. In this theory particle 
properties are prior to the existence of elementary particles. They are the 
actual components which in valid groups MAKE UP particles. And particle 
properties themselves, like everything else, are just information sets. 
When valid sets of particle properties associate they create information 
states interpreted as particles.

This is easy to see because individual particles interact and transform 
into other particles, but the particle properties themselves are CONSERVED. 
Particles are NOT conserved, but particle properties ARE conserved. 
Therefore it tis the particle properties, not the particles, that are the 
elemental components of reality.

Have I answered your questions?

Edgar



On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:57:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> I still haven't understood the opening paragraph.
>
>> Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In 
>> particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime 
>> background does NOT exist.
>>
>> What is this "everything" which is "computational" ? Specifically, what 
> does the processing, what stores the results? A computation needs states 
> and a programme and input and output data. What are these, where are they 
> stored? Also, a computation uses energy and (I think when erasing) raises 
> entropy. Starting with something that is ill defined doesn't bode well for 
> the rest of the theory.
>
> This is the same problem I had last time, I asked the same questions but I 
> don't recall you answering them then. I'm guessing you won't manage to now, 
> either.
>
> Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle 
>> properties in any particle interaction in computational space. 
>>  
>> The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of 
>> all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among 
>> the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.
>>
>
> This assumes the existence of particles, or something that has these 
> properties. What is that?
>
> It's easy to throw out a "challenge" when you refuse to address any 
> questions properly.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. In any case that's 
irrelevant if we know you now accept that there is a very LARGE correlation 
in most situations, and a definable correlation in ALL situations. That 
there is always SOME correlation.

By actual age changing effect I mean proper accelerations and gravitations 
measurable by a comoving scale at specific clock tick events on his proper 
clock. There is no doubt these are real actual CAUSES with specific 
measurable values that thus must have real actual EFFECTS with specific 
actual values. So you are now saying "that all frames DO preserve these 
effects"?

Your 4 point representation of my method MAY BE circular, but my actual 
method is NOT circular.

Your statement 1. is an incorrect statement of my theory. What I assume 
FIRST in the symmetric case is NOT simultaneity of ages but simultaneity of 
the AGE CHANGING EFFECTS that relativity itself identifies, namely 
acceleration and gravitation. And in the general case the ages are NOT 
simultaneous nor are the age changing effects, yet my method still works. 
Would you claim that in the NON-symmetric case I start by assuming that 
NON-identical ages are NOT simultaneous. No, of course not, so your 
statement 1. does NOT represent an assumption my theory makes. 

I've defined this before but here it is again. The frame in which the 
accelerations are symmetric is a frame in which the same proper 
accelerations of BOTH twins occur at the same proper ages of both twins AND 
in which the proper ages of both twins have the same t value in that 
symmetry preserving frame. They have the same t value because the twins 
exchanged flight plans and agreed they would, and we know that their proper 
clocks MUST run at the same rates under the same accelerations at the same 
proper times. Therefore we must choose a frame that reflects that agreed 
upon symmetry.


To address your two pair moving relative to each other example if A's 
proper time comes out both 0 and 20 at the same point in spacetime that 
sounds like a falsification.

Let me paraphrase it for clarity in terms of a pair of observers A and B, 
and another pair C and D.

If I understand it correctly A and B have the same proper ages, are at rest 
with respect to each other but separated in space.

And C and D have the same proper ages, are at rest with respect to each 
other but also separated in space.

However B and C are initially at the SAME position in space as the pairs 
move past each other.

A's and B's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are 
simultaneous in the A/B rest frame.

C's and D's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are 
simultaneous in the C/D rest frame.

B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the 
same place in spacetime.

NO. for that to be true we have to assume that B's and C's proper ages were 
INITIALLY THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO SUBSEQUENT PROPER ACCELERATION OR 
GRAVITATIONAL DIFFERENCES.

The simple fact that B and C are at the same point in spacetime DOES NOT 
require their proper ages to be the same. Obviously not since the twins in 
general are at DIFFERENT proper ages when they meet at the same point in 
spacetime. How could you believe differently?

So this is the ERROR in your example. Therefore it does NOT generate a 
result in which A's proper age is both 0 and 20 at the same point in 
spacetime.

Edgar







On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:50:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK, this is some progress.
>
> Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages 
> ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any 
> set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some 
> limits. Correct?
>
> This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at 
> all to SOME correlation...
>
>
> Once again your argument turns on vague use of language. You were 
> consistently talking about a "1:1 correlation", so naturally I was using 
> "correlation" in this sense too. If we say "all inertial frames agree that 
> my age T' is simultaneous with my twin's age having some value between T1 
> and T2, but they disagree on the precise value" that is NOT a 1:1 
> correlation, period. So there's been no change in my position, it's you 
> whose changing the meaning of "correlation" in mid-argument in an attempt 
> to prove me wrong.
>
>  
>
>
> You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if 
> they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between 
> the twins,
>
>
> What do you mean by "actual age changing accele

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Thanks but P-time doesn't need to "be rescued from relativity" since it's 
completely consistent with relativity, though apparently not with some 
people's interpretation of relativity.

Edgar

On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's p-time could be rescued from 
> relativity. If the universe is a simulation running on a game of life, 
> which is itself running in a Newtonian universe with separate space and 
> time dimensions (and assuming the simulation can 
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

OK, this is some progress.

Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE 
CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of 
twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some limits. 
Correct?

This is a VERY BIG CHANGE in your stated position, from NO correlation at 
all to SOME correlation...

You though continue to claim that all frames are equally valid, even if 
they DO NOT preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects between 
the twins, while I claim that IF we properly choose a frame that DOES 
preserve the actual age changing acceleration effects that we narrow that 
limit to zero resulting in an EXACT 1:1 age correlation.

You, in fact, have previously agreed that IF we choose the frame in which 
the symmetric accelerations were preserved that we DO get an exact 1:1 
correlation, you just disagree that that frame is privileged because it 
preserves the actual age changing symmetric accelerations like I claim.

So I suggest that for the moment we ASSUME we should choose that frame, and 
then see if it can be consistently applied in a transitive manner to 
achieve a common age correlation between ALL observers.

If it can't my theory is falsified. If it can then we can still agree to 
disagree about how frames should be applied to analyze specific physical 
relationships.


Edgar


On Monday, March 3, 2014 11:39:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Your position becomes more and more absurd.
>
>
> "My position" is simply that for any question on which different frames 
> give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's 
> judgments to be "reality" while others are not. I guarantee you that any 
> physicist would agree with this.
>  
>
>
> You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they 
> are together but they DON'T when they separate.
>
> So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1 
> meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year?
>
>
> Any finite number--one trillionth of a nanometer, say. The theory says 
> that no matter how small the distance D you choose, if you have an inertial 
> frame where two clocks are at rest and synchronized a distance D apart, 
> then in another inertial frame where the two clocks are moving along the 
> axis between them at speed v, at any given moment in this new frame one 
> clock's time will be ahead of the other's by vD/c^2. There is a maximum to 
> how far their times can be out-of-sync since v must be smaller than c, this 
> implies that no inertial frame will see them as being out-of-sync by a time 
> greater than or equal to D/c (so if the two clocks are 1 light-second apart 
> in their rest frame, or 299792458 meters apart, any other frame will see 
> them out-of-sync by less than a second). And this means that if you are 
> rounding ages off at some point, in practice you may not have to worry 
> about disagreements in simultaneity between frames--if two people are 
> precisely the same age in their rest frame and are standing only a meter 
> apart in their inertial rest frame, all other frames will say their ages 
> differ by less than 1/299792458 of a second, so obviously if you're 
> rounding their ages to the nearest second you'll still say they're the 
> "same age" no matter what inertial frame you're using. But if you want to 
> talk about "physical reality" rather than mere practical approximations, 
> the fact remains that different frames will disagree somewhat on which ages 
> are simultaneous for ANY finite separation, and in relativity there can 
> NEVER be a physical basis for saying that one frame's judgments are a true 
> representation of "physical reality" while other's are not.
>
>
>  
>
>
> And is the correlation lost all at once as they separate or gradually? And 
> if all at once, what is the threshold distance where correlation is lost?
>
> And if gradually what is the relativistic formula that determines how much 
> the correlation falls off with distance?
>
>
> See above, if the clocks are at rest a distance D apart and synchronized 
> in their own rest frame, then in another frame moving at speed v along the 
> axis between the two clocks, at any given moment in this new frame the 
> clocks are out-of-sync by vD/c^2. This can be derived directly from the 
> Lorentz transformation which tells you the coordinates of any event in 
> frame #2 if you already have its coordinates in frame #1.
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> The fact is that both twins DO HAVE AN ACTUAL AGE AT ALL TIMES. You've 
> 

An official friendly challenge to Brent, or anybody else interested in QT..

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent, et al,

I officially challenge anyone to poke any holes in my theory of how 
spacetime emerges from quantum events or prove it wrong. If no one takes me 
up on the challenge I'll have to assume everyone accepts it by default.

I claim the theory 
1. Resolves all quantum paradox
2. Provides a conceptual unification of QT and GR
3. Explains the necessary source of quantum randomness

This theory is at least as controversial and potentially groundbreaking as 
my P-time Theory so fire away!


Here's a summary of the theory:

Begin by assuming a world in which everything is computational. In 
particular where the usually single pre-existing dimensional spacetime 
background does NOT exist.

Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in 
a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 
'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness.

There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to 
understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about 
reality.

Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle 
properties in any particle interaction in computational space. 

The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of 
all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among 
the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of 
all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to 
be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles 
of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in 
that event.

Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle 
properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In 
other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing 
particles of every event are necessarily interrelated. They have to be for 
them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to 
satisfy the conservation laws.

Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates 
a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The 
result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships 
which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional 
interrelations.

Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously 
involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons 
impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous 
particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional 
interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical 
spacetime.

He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. 
All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional 
relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of 
the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and 
manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar 
spacetime. 

But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a 
computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It 
must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or 
it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it 
emerged.


Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually 
unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every 
mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely 
independent of all others (a completely separate fragmentary partial space) 
UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common 
quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both 
networks are resolved into a single spacetime common to all its elements.

E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created 
their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their 
own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the 
conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human 
observer in his as yet UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.

However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and 
aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the 
laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned 
with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the 
other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first.

Thus there is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 
'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of 
the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Your position becomes more and more absurd.

You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they are 
together but they DON'T when they separate.

So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1 
meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year?

And is the correlation lost all at once as they separate or gradually? And 
if all at once, what is the threshold distance where correlation is lost?

And if gradually what is the relativistic formula that determines how much 
the correlation falls off with distance?


The fact is that both twins DO HAVE AN ACTUAL AGE AT ALL TIMES. You've 
already agreed to this obvious fact. Thus there absolutely MUST be an 
actual correlation of those ages. That is pure logic, not relativity. All 
you are saying is that relativity does not give a unique answer for what 
that correlation is. Sure, I agree completely.

But my point is that if we choose the correct frame that preserves the 
relationship between ONLY the twins themselves we do get a unique 
unambiguous answer. And so that is the only correct answer. And it is 
consistent and transitive among all observers. Therefore it qualifies as an 
actual physical fact.

All you are saying is that relativity doesn't have a way to calculate an 
age correlation. But not having a way to calculate something DOES NOT MEAN 
it doesn't actually exist, it just means it can't be calculated. Do you 
agree with that?

So to falsify p-time you can't just say a correlation can't be calculated, 
you have to actually prove there is an actual CONTRADICTION between p-time 
and relativity. You haven't yet done that and I don't think you can...


Note also that the GPS system DOES establish actual 1:1 correlations of 
proper times between satellites and ground based receivers both moving 
relative to each other and at distance from each other. if it didn't, it 
couldn't work. So even relativity tells us this is possible.

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:52:12 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.
>
> BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the 
> earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your 
> criterion you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 
> 1:1 correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose 
> their 1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP!
>
>
> You seem to have misunderstood me, although I thought I was pretty 
> clear--I said that they did NOT have a unique "actual" correlation in their 
> ages when they were at rest relative to each other but at different 
> positions in space, so nothing changes if they start walking, they still 
> don't have any unique "actual" correlation in their ages. Try reading what 
> I wrote again (with the correction I mentioned that 'any unique "actual" 
> truth about their ages' has been changed to 'any unique "actual" truth 
> about the correlation between their ages'):
>
> 'No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth 
> about the correlation between their ages in this case, nor would any 
> mainstream physicist. What part of "all frames are equally valid" don't you 
> understand? Or do you not get that if we use an inertial frame where the 
> twins are both moving with the same constant velocity, they do NOT have 
> identical ages at any given moment in this frame? (assuming they had 
> identical ages at any given moment in their rest frame)'
>
> Jesse
>
>  
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> <
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

You claim my p-time theory "sounds outrageous" but you haven't been able to 
meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works 
that I've made to Jesse.

For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of 
twins separated by distance in relative motion but there is when the twins 
are at rest relative to each other even at distance.

But what if the twins are separated by a great distance and just start 
walking away from each other? Do they then magically somehow COMPLETELY 
LOSE ALL their 1:1 correlation of proper ages? If not, ithen the DEGREE OF 
CORRELATION of proper ages must be dependent on the amount of relative 
motion in contradiction to how most interpret relativistic non-simultaneity?

My point is that Jesse and I are having a real detailed discussion of 
P-time theory, and for someone not following the details of that discussion 
to pass judgment on it without actually engaging with the theory is pretty 
presumptuous.

I'd be happy for you to join the discussion if you think you are up to 
it

Or to discuss my theory of how spaceCLOCKtime emerges from quantum events 
which you claim to be interested in but never actually engage with or ask 
questions about. I for one look forward to such a discussion

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:39:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb >wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>>  I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" 
>>> depend on our demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of 
>>> energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation 
>>> invariant.
>>>
>>
>>  That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)
>>   
>>  Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a 
>> lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But 
>> that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a 
>> "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how the neutrino was 
>> discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look 
>> for something new we could count as the energy difference.
>>
>
>  I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous 
> comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or 
> Vic Stenger).
>
> IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey 
> conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that 
> everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300 
> years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately 
> assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out, 
> they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond 
> being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such 
> as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support 
> (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).
>   
>
> Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing 
> something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby 
> achieve conservation.  I don't think the general conservation of energy was 
> considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was 
> seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the idea that the 
> "laws of physics" should not depend on time or place goes back much further 
> and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also 
> metaphysical.  Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just 
> wants a universal clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that 
> reference a specific time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.
>
>
>  Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly 
> detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
>   
>
> Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry 
> and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an 
> absolute requirement (notice I said "desiderata") but it's surprising how 
> much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you read Stenger's 
> essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and 
> others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant 
> theory, then we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough 
> attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics.
>
> Brent
>
>   
> I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a 
> postmodernist take on how scientists operate.
>
>   -- 
> You received this message because you are 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...@google

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.

BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, 
and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion 
you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1 
correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose their 
1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP!

The way you state it this is EITHER OR. Either there is a 1:1 at rest, but 
if they are NOT at rest in the very slightest amount then they COMPLETELY 
AND ABSOLUTELY lose any 1:1 age correlation.

Now if you do NOT agree to that then you are forced to try to claim that 
it's a matter of degree then you have to come up with some mathematical 
function that tells us what VARYING AMOUNT of 1:1 age correlation holds 
with what amount of relative motion. What defines the degree of 1:1 age 
correlation or lack thereof? I certainly don't think relativity theory has 
any such function. For relativity it is absolutely either or. Is this not 
correct?

Or, on the other hand if you use simple logic from my many proofs you just 
admit that any two twins ALWAYS have a 1:1 actual real proper age 
correlation in all situations. And that is is always unambiguously 
calculable in a manner that all observers agree to, but that is not in 
general observable. And this problem and all the other problems simply go 
away

Which is it?

Edgar

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>>
>> No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth 
>> about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. 
>>
>
> Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there 
> is any unique "actual" truth about the CORRELATION between their ages, i.e. 
> whether or not they reach the same age simultaneously (of course there is 
> still a unique truth about each one's age at any specific event on his 
> worldline). They do reach the same age simultaneously in their comoving 
> inertial frame, but this frame's judgments can't be considered any more 
> "valid" than a different inertial frame.
>
> 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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect 
to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) 
even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they 
are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that there is any 
correlation of actual ages possible. Is that correct?

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
> new case by you.
>
> Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each 
> other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration 
> of the entire trip.
>
> At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are 
> in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
> second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.
>
> There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
> because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
> reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
> time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
> each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
> PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
> correlation of proper times.
>
>
> Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each 
> crossing-point.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
> for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
> a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
> trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.
>
>
>
> The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply 
> moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can 
> achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same 
> point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of 
> course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at 
> every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about 
> simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation 
> throughout the trip.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
> EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct 
> measurement.
>
>
>  
>
> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>
>
>
> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper 
> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain th

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time 
limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me 
restate it:

Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our 
previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
EVERY minimum time interval of the trip EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CRISS CROSSES.

We have confirmed there are proper age correlations (at every second) for 
the criss cross trip but it's exactly the same in principle as any non 
criss cross trip. Therefore there must also be proper age correlations (at 
every second) for ALL symmetric trips.

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
> new case by you.
>
> Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each 
> other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration 
> of the entire trip.
>
> At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are 
> in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
> second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.
>
> There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
> because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
> reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
> time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
> each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
> PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
> correlation of proper times.
>
>
> Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each 
> crossing-point.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
> for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
> a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
> trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.
>
>
>
> The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply 
> moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can 
> achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same 
> point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of 
> course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at 
> every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about 
> simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation 
> throughout the trip.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
> EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, no

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
new case by you.

Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other 
at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the 
entire trip.

At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are in 
a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.

There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
correlation of proper times.

Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.

Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct 
> measurement.
>
>
>  
>
> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>
>
>
> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper 
> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation" if you agree all frames will predict 
> exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will 
> also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at 
> that event? 
>
> Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be 
> different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar with 
> relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an "age", and anyway it's 
> quite possible to have an inertial coordinate system where he's at rest but 
> his age still doesn't match the coordinate time, because his birth is 
> assigned some time coordinate different from t=0.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from 
> our frame.
>
>
> Actual physical measurements can be seen by any observer, like the example 
> of looking at the age clock of someone you're in motion relative to, so 
> there's nothing that one person can "observe" that someone else "cannot 
> observe" just because they're in a different rest frame, if by "observe" 
> you mean "measure using a physical instrument". Of course, actual physical 
> measurements may be interpreted differently d

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then 
I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When 
you spring your 'proof' we will find that out.

And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or 
actual truth about VIEWS of simultaneity from different frames. That is 
standard relativity which I accept completely. But you still find it 
impossible to understand we can DEDUCE or calculate an ACTUAL physical 
simultaneity irrespective of VIEWS of it.

And just as proper time invariance is NOT ANY VIEW but a deduction or 
calculation, we CAN use deductions and calculations that DO NOT correspond 
to any particular view to determine relativistic truth That such a 
methodology is permissible?


Do you agree that the symmetric relationship defined by the twins executing 
the exact same proper accelerations at their exact same proper times is a 
meaningful physical concept? That we can speak meaningfully about a 
symmetric relationship? You've been referring to it as if you do. Note that 
the twins certainly consider it a meaningful physical scenario because they 
can exchange and execute specific flight plans on that basis.

If so you agree that some frames preserve that real physical relationship 
and some don't? 

If so please tell me why if we want to analyze that ACTUAL real physical 
relationship we should not choose a frame that preserves it?


And second, do you agree my method is consistently calculating something, 
and that something is transitive, even if you don't agree it's a physically 
meaningful concept? 

If not then please try to prove it's not unambiguous and transitive, using 
MY definitions of MY theory rather than your 3 points. In other words 
assume it and then try to disprove it works.

Edgar





On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you one simple question.
>
> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
> exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
> must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?
>
> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
> exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
> actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>
>
>
> It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T 
> have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics 
> is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR "ACTUAL" TRUTH ABOUT 
> SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an "actual" truth that they are the 
> same age or an "actual" truth that they are different ages. These things 
> are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of 
> which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the "same y 
> coordinates" in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions 
> of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on 
> different worldlines have the "same t coordinate" in any given inertial 
> coordinate system, nothing more.
>
>  
>
>
> What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
> have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
> exact same actual ages when they meet?
>
>
> Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they "do not have 
> the same actual ages", I simply say there is no objective truth about which 
> ages are "actually" simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an 
> arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things 
> work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, 
> the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which 
> twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so 
> the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower 
> after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out 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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, but what you are saying here is just that it is impossible to 
unambiguously OBSERVE that the proper ages are the same. I agree. But it is 
possible to unambiguously DEDUCE and CALCULATE that they MUST be the same, 
which is all my theory says.

If we can use calculation and deduction with respect to an invariant notion 
of proper ages that we CANNOT unambiguously observe, why can't we use 
calculation and deduction with proper age simultaneity as well?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you one simple question.
>
> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
> exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
> must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?
>
> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
> exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
> actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>
>
>
> It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T 
> have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics 
> is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR "ACTUAL" TRUTH ABOUT 
> SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an "actual" truth that they are the 
> same age or an "actual" truth that they are different ages. These things 
> are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of 
> which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the "same y 
> coordinates" in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions 
> of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on 
> different worldlines have the "same t coordinate" in any given inertial 
> coordinate system, nothing more.
>
>  
>
>
> What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
> have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
> exact same actual ages when they meet?
>
>
> Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they "do not have 
> the same actual ages", I simply say there is no objective truth about which 
> ages are "actually" simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an 
> arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things 
> work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, 
> the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which 
> twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so 
> the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower 
> after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out 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: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Well, we already know we get your knowledge of physics from TV shows so why 
not your knowledge, or lack thereof, of other subjects as well?
:-)

And you should really learn the difference between antiques and 
antiquities. You just display your continuing dismal ignorance by confusing 
them...

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:08:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> If one can believe TV shows, antiques dealers are a bunch of rogues hoping 
> to fleece old dears out of a fortune by giving them a tiny payout for some 
> valuable item they've kept in the attic for decades and don't realise the 
> true value of.
>
>
> On 2 March 2014 12:34, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The 
>>> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other 
>>> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical 
>>> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in 
>>> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality 
>>> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental 
>>> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS 
>>> mathematical.
>>>
>>> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities 
>>> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>  
>> He's so not as cool as me. I'm like - antiques dealing is not for me. But 
>> tracking down rare antiquities in a bashed up fedora I will so like do 
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To address your points in order:

1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
observation. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A 
at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the 
views.

Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from 
our frame. That's what I do to establish 1:1 correlations of actual ages. I 
use calculations that trump Views, that trump observations. We don't always 
have to use frame views to establish relativistic truth. Do you agree with 
that? You must if you accept proper age invariance.

Also note that the ticks of the symmetric twins' own comoving clocks serve 
as event markers. So if the proper ages of the twins are invariant to all 
observers, then all observers can simply observe their clock tick markers 
reading exactly the same for the same proper ages of both twins. That 
PROVES the 1:1 correlation that the real actual ages of the symmetric twins 
always occur at the same clock tick markers and thus they are the same 
proper ages at the same times.

Thus all observers agree that the proper ages of both twins occur at the 
same clock tick marker readings of the twins own proper clocks.

This is one more proof the actual ages of the symmetric twins are equal 
during the trip, and EVERY OBSERVER AGREES ON THIS. Thus it is a real 
physical fact.


2. What all these quotes mean in saying that all frames are equally valid 
is that all observer VIEWS are real actual VIEWS of reality. That they are 
what the observer actually observes. I certainly agree with that. However 
as I've pointed out they don't all preserve the actual physical reality of 
SPECIFIC facts. I just pointed out how they don't with respect to the 
invariance of proper times which are not observable views but calculations. 
Proper age invariance is a physical fact at odds with the notion that all 
frames are equally valid as anything else than VIEWS.

3. No. By "the different ages of twins in relative motion are not agreed 
and thus are views rather than actual physical facts" I mean just that, and 
just what I've always said. The 1:1 correlation is NOT the VIEW of one twin 
of the other's clock. It is a logical calculation and not a view that 
establishes that 1:1.

4. **You now say you "DON'T CLAIM YOU PROVE P-TIME SIMULTANEITY IS NOT 
TRANSITIVE!". OK, great. Wonderful! That's progress, and a complete change 
from what you said previously. You then are apparently trying to prove 
something else. But please, respectfully, you are trying to disprove MY 
theory, so please let ME state MY theory and then try to disprove that 
rather than trying to disprove something that isn't my actual theory.

I just gave a concise statement of my theory earlier today. Can you 
disprove it or can't you?

Edgar







On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is 
> frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at 
> a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a 
> particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin), 
> then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get 
> the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what 
> Alice's age is at the "same moment" that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial 
> location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any 
> "actual physical fact" about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule 
> out presentism since there could still be a "metaphysical fact" about 
> simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if 
> there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical 
> predictions).
>
>
>  
>
>  but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her 
> actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this?
>
>
> "Don't change her actual a

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Hmmm, that's exactly what I said. So why are you disagreeing with yourself 
again? Looks like you are out of touch both with reality and English 
comprehension...

Edgar

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:51:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer >wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> Edgar
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Let me ask you one simple question.

In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?

If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?

What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
exact same actual ages when they meet?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is 
> frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at 
> a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a 
> particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin), 
> then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get 
> the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what 
> Alice's age is at the "same moment" that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial 
> location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any 
> "actual physical fact" about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule 
> out presentism since there could still be a "metaphysical fact" about 
> simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if 
> there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical 
> predictions).
>
>
>  
>
>  but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her 
> actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this?
>
>
> "Don't change her actual age" WHEN? Doesn't change her age at some 
> specific event on her worldline, or doesn't change what her age is "now" at 
> the same moment that some distant observer like Bob reaches a particular 
> age, say 40? If the first I agree that she has an actual age at any given 
> event on her wrodline, but there ARE no different "views" of this since all 
> frames agree on her proper age at any specific event on her worldline. If 
> the latter I don't agree there is any physical basis for saying she has a 
> unique "actual age" when Bob is 40, since relativity doesn't give any 
> physical basis for a preferred definition of simultaneity.
>  
>
>
> Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand 
> that all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical 
> fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some 
> frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER 
> OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. 
>
>
> Not a physicist in the world would agree with you that there is a 
> "fundamental notion in relativity that some frames represent actual 
> physical facts", you appear to be completely confused about the difference 
> between your own p-time views and mainstream relativity. In special 
> relativity there can NEVER be a basis for considering one inertial frame 
> more "correct" than any other. There are only two kinds of facts in 
> relativity:
>
> 1. Facts about frame-independent matters like the proper time of an 
> observer at a particular event on their worldline; all frames agree in 
> their predictions about these, so they don't give any reason to prefer one 
> frame over another.
>
> 2. Facts about frame-dependent matters like the coordinate velocity of an 
> object at a particular event on its worldline, or the question of which 
> point on worldline B is simultaneous with a particular point on worldline 
> A; different frames disagree on these matters, and in relativity NO FRAME'S 
> STATEMENTS ABOUT FRAME-DEPENDENT MATTERS ARE CONSIDERED MORE VALID THAN ANY 
> OTHER FRAME'S.
>
> If you don't believe me that it's a basic principle of relat

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To address your questions:

1. Yes, of course the choice of "their own frame" is a matter of 
convention. But that does NOT mean that all frames are equal when it comes 
to accurately representing some particular physical fact or relationship.

2. The "their experience" in my symmetric example is the actual physical 
fact that they know their accelerations are symmetric because they 
exchanged flight plans to ensure that. And because their ACTUAL EXPERIENCE 
is the fact that they both can feel their proper accelerations AND time 
them by their own proper clocks to ensure they are in accordance with the 
flight plans they exchanged. By simple logic they then KNOW BEYOND DOUBT 
that their proper times are always in synch. AND they confirm this by 
meeting with the exact same clock readings that they AGREE upon.

It is true "their OBSERVATIONAL experiences" of each other do not reflect 
this 1:1 proper time correlation but they are SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND 
that these are NON agreed VIEWS which do NOT reflect the actual physical 
FACTS of the relationship on which they DO AGREE and thus which is an 
actual physical fact rather than just views of facts.

3. I DO want to address your '"proof" of non-transitivity. But for the sake 
of clarity and saving time can you please just restate it in the simplest 
possible terms? I'll make it easier by restating my thesis concisely.

I claim:

a. That any two observers can always establish an agreed 1:1 correlation of 
their proper times BETWEEN THEMSELVES.
(This does NOT MEAN that A's t is always = B's t'. It means there is a 
1:1 correlation that both A and B agree upon.)
b. That this 1:1 relationship will be transitive in the sense that if A's t 
:: B's t', and B's t' :: C's t'', then C's t'' :: A's t.

Assuming my method of establishing the 1:1 correlation what's your proof 
this is incorrect?

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:28:01 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you 
> are replying to... 
>
> Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember 
> we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS 
> THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame 
> that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we 
> need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate 
> his OWN proper time with that of the other twin.
>
>
> But you agreed earlier (in your post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/PYrVLII1ClYJ) 
> that the idea of calling the comoving inertial frame of an observer 
> "their own frame" is purely a matter of CONVENTION, not anything imposed on 
> them by "reality". So, we could easily choose a different convention--one 
> in which each twin defines "their own frame", or "what they experience 
> themselves", as the inertial frame in which they have a velocity of 0.99c 
> along the x-axis. If they both agreed to define "the facts as experienced 
> by the twins themselves" in this way, by convention, they could also agree 
> on a 1:1 correlation between their proper times, one that would be 
> different from the 1:1 correlation they'd get if they used the comoving 
> frame.
>
> Do you wish to take back your earlier agreement that phrases like "their 
> own frame", "their view", "what they observe/experience" are only by 
> CONVENTION understood to refer to the comoving inertial frame, that this 
> isn't something forced on us by reality? If you still agree this is a 
> matter of convention, then it seems to me that trying to use something 
> that's merely a matter of human linguistic convention to prove something 
> absolute about "reality" is obviously silly, like trying to prove something 
> about the essential nature of God by noting that according to the spelling 
> conventions of English, "God" is "dog" spelled backwards.
>  
>
>
> All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of 
> the twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish 
> whether the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1.
>
> Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never 
> would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and 
> then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. 
>
> MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS 
> THEMSELV

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
representing ACTUAL physical facts.

E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
sorts of different ages but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of 
her age don't change her actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you 
agree with this?

Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand that 
all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical 
fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some 
frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER 
OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. 

This is quite obvious from the age example above, but it also applies to 
the actual relationship BETWEEN TWINS in my examples. The relationship 
between twins is exactly that, it is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONLY THOSE 
TWINS. Of course you can come up with frames in which that relationship is 
VIEWED differently, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the actual relationship 
between the twins TO THEMSELVES which is what my theory is based on because 
that is the ACTUAL REALITY of that physical situation. It is not just some 
arbitrary VIEW of that reality, it is the REALITY ITSELF. My theory 
recognizes the need to concentrate on actual physical fact as opposed to 
VIEWS of physical facts.

There is a simple CRITERION to determine whether we are talking about 
PHYSICAL FACT or a VIEW of a physical fact. If the parties TO THE FACT 
AGREE on their views of the fact then that agreed view probably represents 
the actual physical fact. If they DO NOT agree then this disagreement 
represents VIEWS of physical facts rather than the FACTS THEMSELVES. I can 
perhaps think of a few explainable exceptions but this is the generally 
applicable criterion.

For example the different ages of the twins when they meet is AGREED by 
both twins. Thus it is a physical fact. But the different ages of twins in 
relative motion is NOT AGREED by both twins. Thus those are VIEWS OF FACTS, 
RATHER THAN THE FACTS THEMSELVES. An absolutely crucial distinction in 
understanding what relativity is all about.

If we can agree on this obvious point, and that we CAN establish a 1:1 
proper time correlation on this basis, then I look forward to considering 
your example which you claim PROVES this 1:1 proper time correlation is not 
transitive. I'm pretty sure it is transitive when properly understood but 
am certainly willing to consider your 'proof'.

Edgar


On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT 
> the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual 
> symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation.
>
>
> Why? You give no rational justification for why "reality" should coincide 
> with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are 
> symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical 
> predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. 
> But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying 
> "simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical" with any 
> sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it 
> leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple "symmetrical" 
> pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute 
> simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJas 
> you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on 
> the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates 
> in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back 
> and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich 
> PROVES that a contradiction follows fr
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. The 
universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have no 
direct knowledge of the universe. They have only their internal mental 
simulation of the universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent 
they are able to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency 
across maximum scope IS TRUTH.

In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some 
aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there 
is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and 
you come nearer to truth.

Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.

Edgar

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: 
>
> > 
> >>> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of   
> >>> distinct 
> > objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of   
> > Reason" and 
> > Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From". 
> > 
> > In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing   
> > out of 
> > our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of   
> > reality, or 
> > is it an emergent phenomena? 
> > Chris 
>
> In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from   
> assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of   
> the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,   
> or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably   
> redundant or wrong. 
>
> I gave more that one TOE as examples. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz 
talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.

Edgar


On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already 
>> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by 
>> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no 
>> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature 
>> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>>  
>
>  OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how it stacks 
> up against Everett et al.
>
>>  
>>  But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only 
>> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>>  
>  
> On the contrary, I am interested in your theory of quantum randomness IF 
> you can flesh it out.  For example how do you describe a Stern-Gerlach 
> experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an EPR experiment, 
> Bose-Einstein condensate,...?
>
> 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

Yes, that's consistent with the theory I present in my book. Specifically 
that computational reality itself is continuous in the sense that there are 
NO separate individual things. This continuous reality does however contain 
overlapping computational domains based on dynamic computational boundaries 
that emerge naturally at various scales.

However it is very difficult for organisms to compute their functioning on 
this basis so they had to evolve a different method to improve their 
functioning. So part of what organisms do in the mental simulations of 
reality on the basis of which they compute their functioning, is to model 
the actual continuous information of reality into discrete things and their 
relationships. This is done because it is much easier to compute organismic 
functioning on the basis of a small set discrete individual classical scale 
things than a huge dynamic mass of continuous elemental information. The 
computations become many orders of magnitude simpler.

So as Cooper apparently suggests, the notion of a world consisting of 
distinct objects, is how humans model reality rather than reality itself. 
This also alludes to the origin of H-math from R-math.

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:58:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote: 
> > "If it's all math, then where does math come from?" 
> > 
> > Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
> is a fact that 
> > 1+1=2. 
>
> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct 
> objects and 
> counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of Reason" and Lakoff 
> and Nunez "Where 
> Mathematics Comes From". 
>
> 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: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Craig,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The substrate is itself formless 
(somewhat analogous to the concept of Tao). Within that arises all the 
forms whose computational interactions compute the current state of the 
universe. These computations compute on the basis of the laws of nature 
which in this model are just as much a part of reality as the information 
states they compute.

So what we call physics is how humans mentally model and try to understand 
this system in terms of their H-math. Or if you wanted you could say that 
R-computations are the actual R-physics to distinguish that from H-physics. 

Edgar


On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:04:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I agree that the substrate that information manifests in is NOT physical, 
>> it is abstract in the sense of no physicality. But the information that 
>> constitutes the universe is REAL, so the substrate it exists within is the 
>> real actual presence of existence itself. That's what brings it to life and 
>> makes it real and actual...
>>
>
> If the real actual presence of 'existence' itself is what brings 
> information to life and makes it real and actual, why isn't that substrate 
> what we call physics and what REALLY constitutes the universe? If 
> information cannot be or do anything without the substrate, then how can we 
> say that information is the important part?
>
>  
>
>>
>> And yes that's me. Thanks for your kind comment!
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The 
>>> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other 
>>> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical 
>>> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in 
>>> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality 
>>> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental 
>>> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS 
>>> mathematical.
>>>
>>> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities 
>>> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>>>
>>>   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: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

I agree that the substrate that information manifests in is NOT physical, 
it is abstract in the sense of no physicality. But the information that 
constitutes the universe is REAL, so the substrate it exists within is the 
real actual presence of existence itself. That's what brings it to life and 
makes it real and actual...

And yes that's me. Thanks for your kind comment!

Edgar

On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:54:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest. 
>>
>
> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The 
> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other 
> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical 
> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in 
> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality 
> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental 
> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS 
> mathematical.
>
> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities 
> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>
>   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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I answered 
several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking the same 
questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you do so 
incoherently and only in terms of your own very rigid worldview.

Well perhaps that's the way that 1p zombies 1p clones operate?

Anyway I do answer all serious questions...

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:42:26 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>
> Can you agree to this at least?
>
>
> To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post:
>
> 'If you continue to ask me "Do you agree?" type questions while ignoring 
> the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign 
> of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts 
> of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, 
> even if it's something like "I find your questions ambiguous" or "you've 
> asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, 
> please narrow it down to one per post".'
>
> If you decide to treat me with the same basic level of respect I have 
> treated you, rather than making a show of asking me questions while you 
> contemptuously ignore my requests that you address mine, then I will keep 
> going with this. If not, I have better things to do.
>
>
> I think some people does not argue, they fake it only. Edgar does not 
> answer the question asked. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> 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+unsubscribe 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you 
are replying to... 

Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember 
we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS 
THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame 
that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we 
need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate 
his OWN proper time with that of the other twin.

All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of the 
twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish whether 
the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1.

Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never 
would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and 
then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. 

MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS 
THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. 
Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how 
those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't 
require input from any other frames to do that.

MY theory then attempts to prove these correlations are transitive on a 
pair by pair basis, not by considering all irrelevant frames and trying to 
establish some invariance that I agree is impossible.

Does this make it clear what my theory is trying to do? The theory is based 
on pair wise correlations, not invariance

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT 
> the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual 
> symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation.
>
>
> Why? You give no rational justification for why "reality" should coincide 
> with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are 
> symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical 
> predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. 
> But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying 
> "simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical" with any 
> sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it 
> leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple "symmetrical" 
> pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute 
> simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJas 
> you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on 
> the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates 
> in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back 
> and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich 
> PROVES that a contradiction follows from your assumptions, given
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Spud,

Based on a computational universe all things are just information states. 
Thus computational changes to any information state constitutes a generic 
experience (what I call an Xperience). Thus any information state is in 
effect a generic observer. 

This is a neat and useful definition because then human observers are seen 
as just special cases of a universal phenomenon and we neatly incorporate 
observers as an essential aspect of reality. We can then even view the 
universe as consisting of Xperience only.

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:51:00 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Ok, Thanks. We're back to the Observer again, where all things are decided 
> at the quantum. From here on the questions tumble forth as a cascade, on 
> whether the Observer is conscious, who is the Observer, what is the 
> Observer? 
>  -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 5:15 pm
> Subject: Re: Is information physical?
>
>  On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:01:51PM -0500, spudb...@aol.com  
> wrote:
> > Not to be a dick, but is not "information" or "data" perforations, and 
> > pulses, 
> in mater and energy? This is how we recognize information from background 
> noise, 
> correct? Is there a third state of reality that is not matter or energy?
> > 
>
> Only when interpreted by an observer. An electrical circuit has only
> voltages and currents, not bits. To an observer, a voltage on a data
> line might be interpreted as 1 if it is greater than 3V, and zero if
> it is less than 1V. In between those two thresholds, the voltage might
> be determinate, but the information is not.
>
> The "third state", as you call it, is a semantically different picture
> where things are described in terms of whether some physical state is
> the same as, or different from, some other physical state, according to
> the interpretation of an observer. From that, comes bits, and all the
> other information-based quantities.
>
> -- 
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

With regards to your contention in your first paragraph below it may 
express the correct view of frame DEPENDENT simultaneity, but that is NOT 
the point I'm making. I'll try to explain more clearly. This example is 
revised to attempt to conform with your previous objections so please bear 
with me. I'll keep it short...

Take twins who start and finish a trip with the same proper ages.

Define their trips as symmetric in the sense they both experience exactly 
equivalent proper accelerations at the exact same moments by their own 
proper clocks. (This is a new definition of symmetric.) This is why their 
ages must be the same when they meet.

Now first I still maintain that in this case it is simple logic to conclude 
that there is a 1:1 correlation of their proper times during the trip, but 
I think we can now do better than that.

Take the beginnings and ends of every phase of their acceleration changes, 
beginning with the start of the trip, as event markers. Now you, yourself, 
tell us that the proper times between every one of these markers is 
invariant. 

Now the question is whether these two invariant proper time sequences are 
synchronized or not. Whether there is a 1:1 correlation of proper times as 
each twin passes through these event markers that are defined identically 
in terms of each twin's proper acceleration? 

You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT 
the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual 
symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation. In any frame 
that PRESERVES that symmetry the observer WILL conclude that the proper 
times of both twins between all markers will be exactly the same, and thus 
the proper times of the twins at every one of these symmetric markers will 
be equal. Thus we do have a natural 1:1 correlation between the proper 
times of the twins that is also consistent with the direct observational 
agreement of proper times at start and finish, which we must account for in 
any accurate analysis.

So my point is that there is a REAL AND ACTUAL SYMMETRY between the trips 
of the twins, and thus to get an accurate view of that real symmetry we 
must analyze it in a frame that preserves that symmetry. And when we do 
this we DO achieve a 1:1 correlation of proper ages during the trip, which 
must obviously be correct if they are to meet with the same ages.

My whole approach depends on recognizing the difference between what is 
REALLY HAPPENING to someone as opposed to how any other observer may VIEW 
what is happening to that OTHER person. It is always what is actually 
happening to someone that is the reality irrespective of other's VIEWS of 
that reality.

You consistently present the correct relativistic analysis of relativistic 
VIEWS without recognizing there is an ACTUAL REALITY involved that can be 
properly analyzed only by frames that recognize and preserve that reality.


Do you agree that if we choose a frame that preserves the real and actual 
symmetry of the trip that we do get EQUAL proper times between all markers 
on the twins respective trips? And thus that we CAN establish a 1:1 
correlation of proper times in this case?

Edgar




On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:11:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is 
> "ONLY one's reading of one's own clock" (as I stated) it IS possible for 
> any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up with 
> the same answer. Is that correct?
>
>
> For a given clock C, it is possible for any observer to calculate the 
> proper time between events ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE, and everyone will get the 
> same answer (it is frame-invariant). But what is NOT frame-invariant is the 
> answer to a question like "what is the proper time on that distant clock 
> RIGHT NOW, at the same moment that my own clock shows some specific time 
> T"--in that case you aren't talking about a specific event on C's 
> worldline, you're talking about a specific event on your worldline (the 
> event of your clock showing time T), and asking which event on C's 
> worldline is simultaneous with that. Since simultaneity is frame-dependent 
> in relativity, there is no frame-invariant answer to this second type of 
> question.
>
>  
>
>
> If so that's precisely what I've been claiming all along! That it's always 
> possible for any observer to calculate any other observer's PROPER TIME. 
> Why did I get the strong impression you were claiming that wasn't so from 
> your previous replies? That is precisely the whole crux of my case, and 
> precisely what I've been claiming
>
> In my v

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Your contention that "there is no evidence for a universe" is simply 
delusional. The very fact you can make any statement absolutely PROVES a 
universe of some kind.

Your contention is so absurd it's laughable..

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:14:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Stathis,
>
> At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
>
>
> There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual aristotelian sense of 
> the word). 
>
>
>
> But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present moment. 
>
>
> Not 3p evidences, and the relativity theory makes it senseless (as Jesse 
> made rather clear here).
> Your p-time seems transitive, and this implies p-time is block-time.
>
>
>
> The experience of our existence in a present moment is the most 
> fundamental empirical observation of our existence. 
>
>
> It is a 1p evidence. It is not sharable. Using that type of evidence is 
> not allow in polite conversation.
>
>
>
>
> And all science, all knowledge, is based on empirical observation.
>
>
> OK. But consciousness and flowing time are not empirical evidence. They 
> are complex data top explain, but cannot be taken for granted, or even well 
> defined.
>
>
>
> So, in the face of this obvious weight of evidence, why do you insist on a 
> block universe instead of a universe in which time flows?
>
> Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and accept 
> what there is NO evidence for?
>
>
> That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and indeed, 
> as you assume comp, you could understand that there is no universe. The 
> notion is close to inconsistent, and explanatively empty.
> Physicists measure numbers, and infer relation among numbers. Then even 
> cosmological theories usually avoid metaphysical commitment. This is done 
> by physicalist philosophers, and can make sense, but then not together with 
> the assumption that the brain functions mechanically at some level.
>
> If you doubt this, then you must find a flaw in the UD Argument.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen  wrote: 
> > Stathis, 
> > 
> > I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you 
> are 
> > completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which 
> time 
> > is already FLOWING. 
> > 
> > Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief 
> in 
> > a block universe becomes a matter of blind faith, rather t
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Craig,

Well again, since you have such an anthropomorphized view of reality in 
which everything in the universe seems to be modeled on human functioning, 
I don't see any meaningful way we can discuss these issues

Best,
Edgar

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:29:14 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:46:47 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently 
>> logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to 
>> tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. 
>>
>
> Unless consistency itself is local. We see this when we wake up from 
> dreams. It is shockingly easy for our minds to adopt dream surreality as 
> logical and consistent. 
>  
>
>> This is where the math comes from. If a computational universe exists, 
>> and ours does, it must be structured logico-mathematically. 
>>
>
> That doesn't mean that logico-mathematical structure itself must be 
> primitive, only that the sensory modes which we use to address universal 
> conditions use logical and mathematical methods of representation. The 
> presence of sense itself, however, and the capacity for sense to be 
> channeled into different modes in the first place, is not proscribed by 
> logic or mathematics, nor can it be explained adequately (only as a 
> skeletal reflection).
>  
>
>> But this does NOT men all human H-math exists, it just means that a 
>> fundamental logico-mathematical structure I call R-math (reality math) 
>> exists. 
>>
>
> But R-math, and 'existence' require an even more fundamental capacity to 
> appreciate and participate in what would later be partially abstracted as 
> R-math, which would itself be partially abstracted as H-math.
>  
>
>> Just the minimum that is necessary to compute the actual universe is all 
>> that is needed. All the rest is H-math, and we can't assume that H-math is 
>> part of R-math. In fact it is provably different. The big mistake Bruno 
>> makes is assuming that H-math is R-math. It isn't. H-math is a generalized 
>> approximation of R-math, which is then vastly extended far beyond R-math.
>>
>
> If the universe could be reduced to the minimum that is necessary to 
> compute, then consciousness would not serve any function. Since the whole 
> point of reducing the real universe to a computation is to pursue the 
> supremacy of function, we have to decide whether computationalism is wrong 
> or whether we are wrong for thinking that there is any such thing as 
> conscious experience.
>
>
>> In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information 
>> is not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of 
>> reality, Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what 
>> is interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their 
>> personal simulations of reality.
>>
>> Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This 
>> substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call 
>> ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus 
>> (non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of 
>> being. 
>>
>
> If information needs a substrate, then it is the substrate which is 
> actually what the universe is made of. I disagree that it is "simply" 
> anything, and would say that it is not non-dimensional but 
> trans-dimensional, as by definition it must include all opportunities to 
> discern dimension. This foundation, which I call sense, I suggest is the 
> presence not just of reality, but fantasy as well, and not just ontological 
> energy, but the sole meta-ontological capacity - the primordial identity of 
> pansentivity.
>
>>
>> A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a 
>> perfectly still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. 
>> that can arise within the water are all the forms of information that make 
>> up and compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than 
>> the underlying water (existence) in which they arise.
>>
>> And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within 
>> it just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of 
>> information forms that can arise within our universe.
>>
>> In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only.
>>
>
> I agree that the wave vs water is a fair metaphor for information vs 
> sense, but I would say the oppo

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Chris,

For a computational universe to even exist it must be consistently 
logico-mathematical. If it weren't the inconsistencies would cause it to 
tear itself apart and thus it couldn't exist. This is where the math comes 
from. If a computational universe exists, and ours does, it must be 
structured logico-mathematically. But this does NOT men all human H-math 
exists, it just means that a fundamental logico-mathematical structure I 
call R-math (reality math) exists. Just the minimum that is necessary to 
compute the actual universe is all that is needed. All the rest is H-math, 
and we can't assume that H-math is part of R-math. In fact it is provably 
different. The big mistake Bruno makes is assuming that H-math is R-math. 
It isn't. H-math is a generalized approximation of R-math, which is then 
vastly extended far beyond R-math.

In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is 
not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality, 
Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is 
interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their 
personal simulations of reality.

Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This 
substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call 
ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus 
(non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of 
being. 

A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly 
still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can 
arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and 
compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the 
underlying water (existence) in which they arise.

And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it 
just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of 
information forms that can arise within our universe.

In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. It is only 
abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the 
current information state of the universe. 

In fact, if one observes reality with trained eyes, one can actually 
directly observe that the only thing out there is just various kinds of 
information. After all ANYTHING that is observable is by definition 
information. Only information is observable, ONLY information exists... 
It is the fact that this information exists in the actual realm of 
existence that makes it real and actual and enables it to compute a real 
information universe.

Edgar


On Friday, February 28, 2014 2:20:23 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information – encoded 
> on what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some 
> cling to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very 
> real. However when you get right down to it all we have is measured values 
> of things and meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated 
> in the experience of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in 
> the end all that we can say for sure about anything is the value it has 
> when we measure it. 
>
> I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit 
> each day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train 
> of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how 
> in a sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every 
> possible outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it 
> that I had never read before.
>
> Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea 
> of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an 
> emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of 
> parallelism and vastness of scale of the information system in which it is 
> self-emergent.
>
>  
>
> Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every 
> information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a 
> substrate medium upon which to encode itself; information seems describable 
> in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on some substrate system. I 
> would like to avoid the infinite regression of stopping at the point of 
> describing systems as existing upon other and requiring other substrate 
> systems that themselves require substrates themselves described as 
> information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally. 
>
> It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a 
> very simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple 
> binary state machine could suffice, given enough bits.
>
> But what are the bits encoded on?
>
>  
>
> At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to 
> where 

Re: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

In the computational theory of reality I present in my book, information is 
not physical, but it is real and is the fundamental component of reality, 
Information is what computes physicality, or more accurately what is 
interpreted as physicality in the minds of organismic beings in their 
personal simulations of reality.

Yet this information does need a substrate in which to manifest. This 
substrate is simply the existence space of reality itself, what I call 
ontological energy, which is not a physical energy, but simply the locus 
(non-dimensional) of the presence of reality, the living happening of 
being. 

A good way to visualize this is that ontological energy is like a perfectly 
still sea of water, and the various waves, currents, eddies etc. that can 
arise within the water are all the forms of information that make up and 
compute the universe. They have no substance of their own other than the 
underlying water (existence) in which they arise.

And of course the nature of water determines what forms can arise within it 
just as the underlying nature of existence determines the types of 
information forms that can arise within our universe.

In this theory EVERYTHING without exception is information only. It is only 
abstract computationally interacting forms that continually compute the 
current information state of the universe. 

In fact, if one observes reality with trained eyes, one can actually 
directly observe that the only thing out there is just various kinds of 
information. After all ANYTHING that is observable is by definition 
information. Only information is observable, ONLY information exists... 
It is the fact that this information exists in the actual realm of 
existence that makes it real and actual and enables it to compute a real 
information universe.

Edgar


On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
>
> http://edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory
>
> I don't recall if the list has discussed these ideas of David Deutsch 
> recently. The link is to an Edge interview in which he discusses his view 
> that mathematicians are mistaken if they believe that information or 
> computation are purely abstract objects. He says that both are in fact 
> physical, but to justify that assertion we may need deeper principles of 
> physics than the existing ones. He proposes constructor theory as a 
> candidate.
>
> Implications for comp (or anything else for that matter)?
>
> David
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is 
"ONLY one's reading of one's own clock" (as I stated) it IS possible for 
any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up with 
the same answer. Is that correct?

If so that's precisely what I've been claiming all along! That it's always 
possible for any observer to calculate any other observer's PROPER TIME. 
Why did I get the strong impression you were claiming that wasn't so from 
your previous replies? That is precisely the whole crux of my case, and 
precisely what I've been claiming

In my view that is exactly what is necessary to establish a 1:1 correlation 
between proper times. If everyone can always calculate everyone's proper 
times including their own in an UNAMBIGUOUS INVARIANT WAY then why isn't it 
possible to establish a 1:1 correlation between them? Please give me a 
clear and simple proof that it's not


I'm not sure whether it's necessarily relevant here but note that the 
"event markers" that define proper ages are already actual physical 
worldline event points defined by the earth's orbit and rotation. So the 
very definition of a proper age is already IN TERMS OF worldline markers. 
We don't have to specify new markers to make things work. Proper time is 
ALREADY NECESSARILY defined in terms of event markers such as physical 
clock ticks. We don't need any new ones.


As for your last question about what I meant by "proper times all running 
at the same rate unless something causes them to run at different rates" 
just strike that and let me ask another instead.

Do you also agree that proper time RATES are calculable by other observers 
and invarian? Not just the times, but the rates as well? 

Thanks,
Edgar





On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:49:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Remember we are talking ONLY about PROPER TIMES, or actual ages. These DO 
> NOT HAVE any MEANING IN OTHER FRAMES than that of the actual frame of the 
> observer in question.
>
>
> No, you couldn't be more wrong about that last statement. Any physics 
> textbook will tell you that the proper time between two events on a 
> worldline is a frame-independent quantity that can be calculated in ANY 
> frame, in fact this is one of the most important frame-independent 
> quantities in both special and general relativity (for example, in general 
> relativity the curvature of spacetime is defined in terms of the "metric" 
> which gives proper time along all possible timelike worldlines in the 
> spacetime, and proper distance along all possible spacelike worldlines).
>
> A simple example: say in Alice's rest frame, there are two markers at rest 
> in this frame 20 light-years apart, and Bob moves inertially from one 
> marker to the other a velocity of 0.8c in this frame. What is the proper 
> time on Bob's worldline between passing the first marker and passing the 
> second? In Alice's frame we could calculate this by first noting it should 
> take 20/0.8 = 25 years of coordinate time in this frame for Bob to get from 
> one to the other, and then the time dilation equation tells us that if he's 
> moving at 0.8c his clock should be slowed by a factor of sqrt(1 - 0.8^2) = 
> 0.6 in this frame, so Bob's own clock should tick forward by 25*0.6 = 15 
> years between passing the first marker and the second. That is BOB'S PROPER 
> TIME, AS CALCULATED IN ALICE'S REST FRAME.
>
> You could of course calculate the proper time in Bob's rest frame too. In 
> this case, you have to take into account length contraction--the markers 
> are moving at 0.8c relative to Bob's frame, so if the distance between them 
> was 20 light-years in their own rest frame, in Bob's frame the distance 
> between them is shortened by a factor of sqrt(1 - 0.8^2) = 0.6, so in Bob's 
> frame the second marker is 20*0.6 = 12 light-years away at the moment he is 
> passing the first marker. Thus, if the second marker is moving towards him 
> at 0.8c, it will take 12/0.8 = 15 years of coordinate time in this frame to 
> reach him after the first marker passed him. And since he is at rest in 
> this frame, his clock ticks at the same rate as coordinate time, so his 
> clock should also tick foward by 15 years between passing the first marker 
> and passing the second. That is BOB's PROPER TIME, AS CALCULATED IN BOB'S 
> REST FRAME, and you can see that we get exactly the same answer as when we 
> calculated his proper time using Alice's rest frame.
>
> After looking over this example, please tell me if you AGREE or DISAGR

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Remember we are talking ONLY about PROPER TIMES, or actual ages. These DO 
NOT HAVE any MEANING IN OTHER FRAMES than that of the actual frame of the 
observer in question. So your comments that an observer's age will be 
measured differently in other frames, while obviously true, is NOT the 
observer's PROPER AGE or PROPER TIME. Every observer has one and only one 
proper age, that is his proper age to himself, NOT to anyone else, not in 
any other frame.

That holds for all your comments about age effects of acceleration being 
different in different frames. Of course they can be but that is NOT PROPER 
ACTUAL AGE.

So I have to disregard all those comments because they don't apply to 
PROPER TIMES OR ACTUAL AGES. Proper time is ONLY one's reading of one's own 
clock, NOT one's own clock viewed from some other frame.

Correct?


Now a very basic question. Do you agree or disagree that all PROPER TIMES 
run at the same rate unless some effect causes them to run at different 
rates? Again this is NOT how clocks appear to run in any other frames but 
their OWN.

If you do not agree then please explain why not and please PROVE to me that 
PROPER TIMES do not run at the same rate unless there is some actual effect 
that causes them to run at different rates.

Edgar





On Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:07:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> First the answer to your question at the end of your post.
>
> Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. 
> However as you point out by CONVENTION it means "the observer's comoving 
> inertial frame" which is the way I was using it.
>
>
> Thanks, it seemed like you might have been suggesting there was some 
> "natural" truth to calculations done in the comoving frame of two 
> obserervers at rest relative to each other, even though they could equally 
> well agree to calculate things from the perspective of a totally different 
> frame.
>
>
> Now to your replies to my post beginning with your first paragraph.
>
> Certainly there are equations that do what you say they do, but I don't 
> see why what I say isn't correct based on that. Why do you claim it is 
> impossible to just take proper acceleration and calculate what my age would 
> have been if there was not any proper acceleration?
>
>
> I don't claim it's impossible, just that it can only be done relative to a 
> particular frame. I can make statements like "I am now 30, but in frame A, 
> if I hadn't accelerated I would now be 20" and "I am now 30, but in frame 
> B, if I hadn't accelerated I would now be 25". 
>
>  
>
> An observer knows what his proper acceleration is, and he knows how much 
> various accelerations are slowing his proper time relative to what it would 
> be if those accelerations didn't happen.
>
>
> "Slowing his proper time" only has meaning relative to a particular frame, 
> there is no frame-independent sense in which clocks slow down (or speed up) 
> due to acceleration in relativity.
>
>  
>
> He has a frame independent measure of acceleration. He knows that 
> particular acceleration will slow his proper time by 1/2 so he can define 
> and calculate an 'inertial time' whose rate is 2x his proper rate.
>
>
> Given the exact same proper acceleration, there may be one frame A where 
> at the end of the acceleration his clock has slowed by 1/2 (relative to the 
> time coordinate of that frame), and another frame B where it has slowed by 
> 1/3, and even another frame where it has *sped up* by a factor of 10. Do 
> you disagree? 
>
>
>
> You seem to think it would be necessary to MEASURE THIS FROM SOME FRAME 
> for the concept to be true. It's not an observable measure, it's the 
> CALCULATION of a useful variable. Therefore there is NO requirement that 
> it's measurable in any frame because it's a frame independent concept, a 
> calculation rather than an observable.
>
>
> Calculations are always calculations of the values of particular numerical 
> quantities, like the "rate" a clock is ticking. So, what matters is whether 
> the quantity in question is frame-dependent (like velocity, or rate of 
> clock ticking) or frame-independent (like proper time at a specific event 
> on someone's worldine), there is nothing inherent in the notion of 
> "calculations" that make them frame-independent. 
>
> Also, *all* calculated quantities in relativity can also be 
> "observables"--it's straightforward to observe frame-independent quantities 
> like proper time (j