subject:"A Question..."



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:12:01 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/1/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: 
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>> *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? *
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the 
>>> CMB look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the 
>>> same as the average motion of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres 
>>> looked radically different then you'd know you were moving at a different 
>>> speed than most matter in the universe. But so what? If you and I want to 
>>> compare our local clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed 
>>> (Special Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General 
>>> Relativity) we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant.  As 
>>> Brent said "*it's called relativity theory for a reason*". 
>>>
>>> Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving at a 
>>> constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you don't 
>>> need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a window on a moving 
>>> train you can see that there is a lot more stuff outside that window than 
>>> inside the train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to most 
>>> of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train than you on a 
>>> parallel track that was moving even faster than you compared to most of the 
>>> stuff around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out 
>>> the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will 
>>> be different not just from each other but also different from the clock on 
>>> the station platform.
>>>
>>> *> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in some 
 moving frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock rate 
>>> change, you observe other people's local clock rate change. Everything 
>>> always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks that behave oddly.
>>>
>>>  John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower clock 
>> rate in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate in that frame. 
>> It's what the other observer measures, even though that observer notices 
>> nothing different. IOW, the calculation of the other observer's clock rate 
>> is not just an appearance, but what is experienced by the other observer. 
>> Now suppose we have an observer moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer 
>> at rest wrt the CMB, what I was calling the local clock. The local clock 
>> rate never changes, but it should according to relativity, from the pov of 
>> the observer in motion wrt the CMB.  AG
>>
>>
>> I think it is unfortunate that the idea of time dilation and length 
>> contraction was ever introduced.  Just compare time dilation to ordinary 
>> Doppler shift.  We don't make a big deal of the oscillator appearing slower 
>> when it's going away from us.  We didn't invent a "frequency contraction" 
>> and puzzle over it.  We just see it is just a temporal-geometric effect and 
>> the oscillator didn't do anything, it didn't slow down or speed up.  When 
>> someone measures the frequency of an oscillator they would never attribute 
>> the measured value to the oscillator without correcting for Doppler due any 
>> relative motion that was present.  Relativistic effects should be looked at 
>> the same way.  Time dilation is not a clock slowing down compared to your 
>> stationary clock.  It is the relativistic Doppler effect due to the two 
>> clocks measuring time in different directions.  It should not be attributed 
>> to the clocks, any more than Doppler shift is changing an oscillator.  It's 
>> just the paths they take thru spacetime and each one correctly measures 
>> duration along their path.  How one looks from a different frame is 
>> interesting from the standpoint of instruments and measurements, but that's 
>> so you can correct for the spatio-temporal effects of motion and curvature, 
>> or you can invert the relation and infer the motion and curvature from the 
>> effects.  But it should be kept clear that the motion and curvature are not 
>> effecting anything locally, they are only a relative effect of the 
>> intervening space and motion.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But the doppler effect is apparent only; it's what the observer receiving 
> the signal measures or perceives; not what is reality for, say, the 
> engineer of the passing train. In contrast, IIUC, the LT tells us what the 
> observer in the transformed coordinate system actually measures, and 
> experiences. AG 
>
>
> The observer in which transformed system?  The

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 2/1/2020 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson
 wrote:

/>But what if the CMB _is_ the local clock? /


I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the
hemispheres of the CMB look about the same to you then you'd
know you're motion was about the same as the average motion
of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres looked
radically different then you'd know you were moving at a
different speed than most matter in the universe. But so
what? If you and I want to compare our local clocks the only
relevant factors are our relative speed (Special Relativity)
and the relative gravitational fields (General Relativity)
we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant. 
As Brent said "/it's called relativity theory for a reason/".

Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room
moving at a constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving
or not, but you don't need to invoke the CMB to know that if
you look out a window on a moving train you can see that
there is a lot more stuff outside that window than inside the
train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to
most of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train
than you on a parallel track that was moving even faster than
you compared to most of the stuff around us then the only
thing you would need to know to figure out the time dilation
is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will be
different not just from each other but also different from
the clock on the station platform.

/> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a
clock in some moving frame, if its "clock" reading
doesn't change? AG /


I don't understand the question. You never see your local
clock rate change, you observe other people's local clock
rate change. Everything always seems normal to you, it's
other people's clocks that behave oddly.

 John K Clark


When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower
clock rate in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate
in that frame. It's what the other observer measures, even though
that observer notices nothing different. IOW, the calculation of
the other observer's clock rate is not just an appearance, but
what is experienced by the other observer. Now suppose we have an
observer moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer at rest wrt
the CMB, what I was calling the local clock. The local clock rate
never changes, but it should according to relativity, from the
pov of the observer in motion wrt the CMB.  AG


I think it is unfortunate that the idea of time dilation and
length contraction was ever introduced.  Just compare time
dilation to ordinary Doppler shift.  We don't make a big deal of
the oscillator appearing slower when it's going away from us.  We
didn't invent a "frequency contraction" and puzzle over it.  We
just see it is just a temporal-geometric effect and the oscillator
didn't do anything, it didn't slow down or speed up.  When someone
measures the frequency of an oscillator they would never attribute
the measured value to the oscillator without correcting for
Doppler due any relative motion that was present.  Relativistic
effects should be looked at the same way.  Time dilation is not a
clock slowing down compared to your stationary clock.  It is the
relativistic Doppler effect due to the two clocks measuring time
in different directions.  It should not be attributed to the
clocks, any more than Doppler shift is changing an oscillator. 
It's just the paths they take thru spacetime and each one
correctly measures duration along their path.  How one looks from
a different frame is interesting from the standpoint of
instruments and measurements, but that's so you can correct for
the spatio-temporal effects of motion and curvature, or you can
invert the relation and infer the motion and curvature from the
effects.  But it should be kept clear that the motion and
curvature are not effecting anything locally, they are only a
relative effect of the intervening space and motion.

Brent


But the doppler effect is apparent only; it's what the observer 
receiving the signal measures or perceives; not what is reality for, 
say, the engineer of the passing train. In contrast, IIUC, the LT 
tells us what the observer in the transformed coordinate system 
actually measures, and experiences. AG


The observ

Re: A question about relativity



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: 
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>> *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? *
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the 
>>> CMB look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the 
>>> same as the average motion of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres 
>>> looked radically different then you'd know you were moving at a different 
>>> speed than most matter in the universe. But so what? If you and I want to 
>>> compare our local clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed 
>>> (Special Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General 
>>> Relativity) we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant.  As 
>>> Brent said "*it's called relativity theory for a reason*". 
>>>
>>> Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving at a 
>>> constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you don't 
>>> need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a window on a moving 
>>> train you can see that there is a lot more stuff outside that window than 
>>> inside the train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to most 
>>> of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train than you on a 
>>> parallel track that was moving even faster than you compared to most of the 
>>> stuff around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out 
>>> the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will 
>>> be different not just from each other but also different from the clock on 
>>> the station platform.
>>>
>>> *> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in some 
 moving frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock rate 
>>> change, you observe other people's local clock rate change. Everything 
>>> always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks that behave oddly.
>>>
>>>  John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower clock 
>> rate in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate in that frame. 
>> It's what the other observer measures, even though that observer notices 
>> nothing different. IOW, the calculation of the other observer's clock rate 
>> is not just an appearance, but what is experienced by the other observer. 
>> Now suppose we have an observer moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer 
>> at rest wrt the CMB, what I was calling the local clock. The local clock 
>> rate never changes, but it should according to relativity, from the pov of 
>> the observer in motion wrt the CMB.  AG
>>
>>
>> I think it is unfortunate that the idea of time dilation and length 
>> contraction was ever introduced.  Just compare time dilation to ordinary 
>> Doppler shift.  We don't make a big deal of the oscillator appearing slower 
>> when it's going away from us.  We didn't invent a "frequency contraction" 
>> and puzzle over it.  We just see it is just a temporal-geometric effect and 
>> the oscillator didn't do anything, it didn't slow down or speed up.  When 
>> someone measures the frequency of an oscillator they would never attribute 
>> the measured value to the oscillator without correcting for Doppler due any 
>> relative motion that was present.  Relativistic effects should be looked at 
>> the same way.  Time dilation is not a clock slowing down compared to your 
>> stationary clock.  It is the relativistic Doppler effect due to the two 
>> clocks measuring time in different directions.  It should not be attributed 
>> to the clocks, any more than Doppler shift is changing an oscillator.  It's 
>> just the paths they take thru spacetime and each one correctly measures 
>> duration along their path.  How one looks from a different frame is 
>> interesting from the standpoint of instruments and measurements, but that's 
>> so you can correct for the spatio-temporal effects of motion and curvature, 
>> or you can invert the relation and infer the motion and curvature from the 
>> effects.  But it should be kept clear that the motion and curvature are not 
>> effecting anything locally, they are only a relative effect of the 
>> intervening space and motion.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But the doppler effect is apparent only; it's what the observer receiving 
> the signal measures or perceives; not what is reality for, say, the 
> engineer of the passing train. In contrast, IIUC, the LT tells us what the 
> observer in the transformed coordinate system actually measures, and 
> experiences. AG
>

Another problem; using space-time paths, one gets the differential elapsed 
time for different

Re: A question about relativity



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: 
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? *
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the CMB 
>> look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the same 
>> as the average motion of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres looked 
>> radically different then you'd know you were moving at a different speed 
>> than most matter in the universe. But so what? If you and I want to compare 
>> our local clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed (Special 
>> Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General Relativity) 
>> we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant.  As Brent said 
>> "*it's 
>> called relativity theory for a reason*". 
>>
>> Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving at a 
>> constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you don't 
>> need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a window on a moving 
>> train you can see that there is a lot more stuff outside that window than 
>> inside the train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to most 
>> of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train than you on a 
>> parallel track that was moving even faster than you compared to most of the 
>> stuff around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out 
>> the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will 
>> be different not just from each other but also different from the clock on 
>> the station platform.
>>
>> *> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in some 
>>> moving frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG *
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock rate 
>> change, you observe other people's local clock rate change. Everything 
>> always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks that behave oddly.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
> When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower clock rate 
> in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate in that frame. It's 
> what the other observer measures, even though that observer notices nothing 
> different. IOW, the calculation of the other observer's clock rate is not 
> just an appearance, but what is experienced by the other observer. Now 
> suppose we have an observer moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer at 
> rest wrt the CMB, what I was calling the local clock. The local clock rate 
> never changes, but it should according to relativity, from the pov of the 
> observer in motion wrt the CMB.  AG
>
>
> I think it is unfortunate that the idea of time dilation and length 
> contraction was ever introduced.  Just compare time dilation to ordinary 
> Doppler shift.  We don't make a big deal of the oscillator appearing slower 
> when it's going away from us.  We didn't invent a "frequency contraction" 
> and puzzle over it.  We just see it is just a temporal-geometric effect and 
> the oscillator didn't do anything, it didn't slow down or speed up.  When 
> someone measures the frequency of an oscillator they would never attribute 
> the measured value to the oscillator without correcting for Doppler due any 
> relative motion that was present.  Relativistic effects should be looked at 
> the same way.  Time dilation is not a clock slowing down compared to your 
> stationary clock.  It is the relativistic Doppler effect due to the two 
> clocks measuring time in different directions.  It should not be attributed 
> to the clocks, any more than Doppler shift is changing an oscillator.  It's 
> just the paths they take thru spacetime and each one correctly measures 
> duration along their path.  How one looks from a different frame is 
> interesting from the standpoint of instruments and measurements, but that's 
> so you can correct for the spatio-temporal effects of motion and curvature, 
> or you can invert the relation and infer the motion and curvature from the 
> effects.  But it should be kept clear that the motion and curvature are not 
> effecting anything locally, they are only a relative effect of the 
> intervening space and motion.
>
> Brent
>

But the doppler effect is apparent only; it's what the observer receiving 
the signal measures or perceives; not what is reality for, say, the 
engineer of the passing train. In contrast, IIUC, the LT tells us what the 
observer in the transformed coordinate system actually measures, and 
experiences. AG 

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

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 2/1/2020 12:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/>But what if the CMB _is_ the local clock? /


I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of
the CMB look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion
was about the same as the average motion of matter in the
universe, if the hemispheres looked radically different then you'd
know you were moving at a different speed than most matter in the
universe. But so what? If you and I want to compare our local
clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed (Special
Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General
Relativity) we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is
irrelevant.  As Brent said "/it's called relativity theory for a
reason/".

Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving
at a constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but
you don't need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a
window on a moving train you can see that there is a lot more
stuff outside that window than inside the train, and so you could
determine you're moving relative to most of the stuff around you.
And if I was in a smaller train than you on a parallel track that
was moving even faster than you compared to most of the stuff
around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out
the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local
clocks will be different not just from each other but also
different from the clock on the station platform.

/> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in
some moving frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG /


I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock
rate change, you observe other people's local clock rate change.
Everything always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks
that behave oddly.

 John K Clark


When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower clock 
rate in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate in that 
frame. It's what the other observer measures, even though that 
observer notices nothing different. IOW, the calculation of the other 
observer's clock rate is not just an appearance, but what is 
experienced by the other observer. Now suppose we have an observer 
moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer at rest wrt the CMB, what I 
was calling the local clock. The local clock rate never changes, but 
it should according to relativity, from the pov of the observer in 
motion wrt the CMB.  AG


I think it is unfortunate that the idea of time dilation and length 
contraction was ever introduced.  Just compare time dilation to ordinary 
Doppler shift.  We don't make a big deal of the oscillator appearing 
slower when it's going away from us.  We didn't invent a "frequency 
contraction" and puzzle over it.  We just see it is just a 
temporal-geometric effect and the oscillator didn't do anything, it 
didn't slow down or speed up.  When someone measures the frequency of an 
oscillator they would never attribute the measured value to the 
oscillator without correcting for Doppler due any relative motion that 
was present.  Relativistic effects should be looked at the same way.  
Time dilation is not a clock slowing down compared to your stationary 
clock.  It is the relativistic Doppler effect due to the two clocks 
measuring time in different directions.  It should not be attributed to 
the clocks, any more than Doppler shift is changing an oscillator.  It's 
just the paths they take thru spacetime and each one correctly measures 
duration along their path.  How one looks from a different frame is 
interesting from the standpoint of instruments and measurements, but 
that's so you can correct for the spatio-temporal effects of motion and 
curvature, or you can invert the relation and infer the motion and 
curvature from the effects.  But it should be kept clear that the motion 
and curvature are not effecting anything locally, they are only a 
relative effect of the intervening space and motion.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/80e9c935-4cc4-83bf-7619-b8fd5b34cc93%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *>But what if the CMB is the local clock? *
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the CMB 
> look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the same 
> as the average motion of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres looked 
> radically different then you'd know you were moving at a different speed 
> than most matter in the universe. But so what? If you and I want to compare 
> our local clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed (Special 
> Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General Relativity) 
> we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant.  As Brent said 
> "*it's 
> called relativity theory for a reason*".
>
> Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving at a 
> constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you don't 
> need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a window on a moving 
> train you can see that there is a lot more stuff outside that window than 
> inside the train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to most 
> of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train than you on a 
> parallel track that was moving even faster than you compared to most of the 
> stuff around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out 
> the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will 
> be different not just from each other but also different from the clock on 
> the station platform.
>
> *> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in some moving 
>> frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG *
>
>
> I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock rate 
> change, you observe other people's local clock rate change. Everything 
> always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks that behave oddly.
>
>  John K Clark
>

When you use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the slower clock rate 
in another frame, what you get is the real clock rate in that frame. It's 
what the other observer measures, even though that observer notices nothing 
different. IOW, the calculation of the other observer's clock rate is not 
just an appearance, but what is experienced by the other observer. Now 
suppose we have an observer moving wrt the CMB, and the other observer at 
rest wrt the CMB, what I was calling the local clock. The local clock rate 
never changes, but it should according to relativity, from the pov of the 
observer in motion wrt the CMB.  AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eba45b13-dcbf-48e7-971b-6f728eccad51%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote:

*>But what if the CMB is the local clock? *

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if all the hemispheres of the CMB
look about the same to you then you'd know you're motion was about the same
as the average motion of matter in the universe, if the hemispheres looked
radically different then you'd know you were moving at a different speed
than most matter in the universe. But so what? If you and I want to compare
our local clocks the only relevant factors are our relative speed (Special
Relativity) and the relative gravitational fields (General Relativity)
we're in, how the CMB looks to either of us is irrelevant. As Brent
said "*it's
called relativity theory for a reason*".

Einstein and even Galileo said if you're in a sealed room moving at a
constant velocity you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you don't
need to invoke the CMB to know that if you look out a window on a moving
train you can see that there is a lot more stuff outside that window than
inside the train, and so you could determine you're moving relative to most
of the stuff around you. And if I was in a smaller train than you on a
parallel track that was moving even faster than you compared to most of the
stuff around us then the only thing you would need to know to figure out
the time dilation is our relative motion. And both of our local clocks will
be different not just from each other but also different from the clock on
the station platform.

*> How could it manifest time dilation, compared to a clock in some moving
> frame, if its "clock" reading doesn't change? AG *

I don't understand the question. You never see your local clock rate
change, you observe other people's local clock rate change. Everything
always seems normal to you, it's other people's clocks that behave oddly.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3iN-mKpUYdk4aao0y-M6pBXyhtkLuffuHfyyW7iOasnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 2/1/2020 4:41 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 5:20:43 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and
that it has no relative motion wrt anything, so how can time
dilation be applied to it? AG/

It can't. Nobody said the CMB looks the same for everybody
regardless of their motion. It doesn't. But if you and I are in
relative motion then I will see my local clock running faster than
your local clock, and you will see your local clock running faster
than my local clock. And the CMB has absolutely nothing to do with
it because Time Dilation is about what local clocks do.

John K Clark

But what if the CMB _is_ the local clock? How could it manifest time
dilation, compared to a clock in some moving frame, if its "clock"
reading doesn't change? AG

There no moving vs stationary frames. All motion is relative. If a
clock's reading doesn't change, it's stopped. It's not marking time.
It is easy to observe time dilation of a clock synced to the CMB...just
be in motion relative to it.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6629c009-5d73-6cbc-5a8c-b7b3d929af65%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 5:20:43 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no 
>> relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG*
>
>
> It can't. Nobody said the CMB looks the same for everybody regardless of 
> their motion. It doesn't. But if you and I are in relative motion then I 
> will see my local clock running faster than your local clock, and you will 
> see your local clock running faster than my local clock. And the CMB has 
> absolutely nothing to do with it because Time Dilation is about what local 
> clocks do.
>
>  John K Clark 
>

But what if the CMB *is* the local clock? How could it manifest time 
dilation, compared to a clock in some moving frame, if its "clock" reading 
doesn't change? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4c11e5cb-7aa7-47f1-b598-7a1fe9d4dccd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:47 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

*> My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no
> relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG*


It can't. Nobody said the CMB looks the same for everybody regardless of
their motion. It doesn't. But if you and I are in relative motion then I
will see my local clock running faster than your local clock, and you will
see your local clock running faster than my local clock. And the CMB has
absolutely nothing to do with it because Time Dilation is about what local
clocks do.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1hsxM8Eg2CUgf%2BzaM_ifA0XCOQ8CtJjAqJR4DYdP-QHw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-02-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 6:34:32 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 This simultaneity is the Hubble frame.

 LC

>>>
>>> No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find 
>>> on Internet. What exactly is it? TIA, AG 
>>>
>>
>> It is a frame where this gravitational redshift of CMB or equivalently a 
>> time dilation of quantum oscillations that emitted this radiation is 
>> homogeneous.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Wouldn't that be everywhere at rest wrt the CMB? AG 
>

But of course that is the case, where here rest just means isotropic 
distribution of the CMB radiation. There are small deviations from local 
motion. This however, does mean there is radial motion of galaxies and 
ultimately the last ionized surface of scatter away, and this motion away 
is the same for all observers.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5385a58c-d71f-4603-b043-ea5b2d141fb4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/31/2020 7:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan
Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent
wrote:

On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a
galaxy far removed and one here, would read the
same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant
galaxy's speed of recession. But relativity says
otherwise. This is what puzzles me. AG

Ask yourself /*when*/ do they read the same time.

Brent

I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the
CMBR is the same everywhere, at any time t, we can in
principle determine if the two measurements are
simultaneous or not. AG

But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation
of this clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What
the hell is going on? AG

The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the
most perfect and stable clock in existence are (in this case
cesium atom clocks). They always measure proper time thru
spacetime. The only reason that when compared they seem to
register different durations is because they traveled
different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different
proper length. "Time dilation" is not some function of the
clock...it's a function of the path the clock is measuring.
Remember my odometer analogy?

Brent

Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every
location in space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a
property of THIS clock.

Time dilation is a property of one clock (or one path) relative to
another. It's called relatvity theory of a reason.

*My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has
no relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied
to it? AG*

For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths
through space-time are irrelevant. AG

Clocks that aren't moving thru spacetime are stopped. You're
thinking of clocks that aren't moving thru space.

*I'm thinking about motion through space. That's what the "v" in the
Lorentz transformation means; motion through space. AG

Only relative motion is meaningful. Clocks synced to the CMB are moving
relative to one another if the universe is expanding.

Brent

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: 



 On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
> and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
> puzzles me. AG
>
>
> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>
> Brent
>

 I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the 
 same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
 measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  

>>>
>>> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this 
>>> clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect 
>>> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).  They 
>>> always measure proper time thru spacetime.  The only reason that when 
>>> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled 
>>> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper 
>>> length.  "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a 
>>> function of the path the clock is measuring.  Remember my odometer analogy?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in 
>> space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. 
>>
>>
>> Time dilation is a property of one clock (or one path) relative to 
>> another.  It's called relatvity theory of a reason.
>>
>
> *My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no 
> relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG*
>
>> For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through 
>> space-time are irrelevant. AG 
>>
>> Clocks that aren't moving thru spacetime are stopped.  You're thinking of 
>> clocks that aren't moving thru space.
>>
>
> *I'm thinking about motion through space. That's what the "v" in the 
> Lorentz transformation means; motion through space. AG *
>

*I did refer to motion through space-time to demonstrate that your model of 
space-time motion to explain that time dilation doesn't work in the case of 
CMB clocks. But time does change for these clocks, however slowly, which 
are synchronized and located everywhere.  AG*

>
>> Brent
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f7f1f14e-9ca6-494e-80f9-57e709a47539%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 7:34:18 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


 That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
 and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
 galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
 puzzles me. AG


 Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the 
>>> same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
>>> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  
>>>
>>
>> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this clock! 
>> (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>>
>>
>> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect 
>> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).  They 
>> always measure proper time thru spacetime.  The only reason that when 
>> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled 
>> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper 
>> length.  "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a 
>> function of the path the clock is measuring.  Remember my odometer analogy?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in 
> space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. 
>
>
> Time dilation is a property of one clock (or one path) relative to 
> another.  It's called relatvity theory of a reason.
>

*My point is that the CMB "clock" exists everywhere, and that it has no 
relative motion wrt anything, so how can time dilation be applied to it? AG*

> For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through 
> space-time are irrelevant. AG 
>
> Clocks that aren't moving thru spacetime are stopped.  You're thinking of 
> clocks that aren't moving thru space.
>

*I'm thinking about motion through space. That's what the "v" in the 
Lorentz transformation means; motion through space. AG *

>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/94f7ad56-57ab-4741-a6b1-01079b502cde%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/31/2020 12:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a
galaxy far removed and one here, would read the same
CMBR "time", regardless of the distant galaxy's speed of
recession. But relativity says otherwise. This is what
puzzles me. AG

Ask yourself /*when*/ do they read the same time.

Brent

I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR
is the same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle
determine if the two measurements are simultaneous or not. AG

But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of
this clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell
is going on? AG

The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most
perfect and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium
atom clocks). They always measure proper time thru spacetime.
The only reason that when compared they seem to register different
durations is because they traveled different paths thru spacetime
and these paths had different proper length. "Time dilation" is
not some function of the clock...it's a function of the path the
clock is measuring. Remember my odometer analogy?

Brent

Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location
in space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS
clock.

Time dilation is a property of one clock (or one path) relative to
another. It's called relatvity theory of a reason.

For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through
space-time are irrelevant. AG

Clocks that aren't moving thru spacetime are stopped. You're thinking
of clocks that aren't moving thru 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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2845e0ef-3479-f483-68f3-6a5166a3fdc5%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if 
 you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature 
 decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers 
 in 
 all galaxies exists to one part in 100,000.  What are the implications? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are heading for the Andromeda Galaxy at 99.999% the speed of 
>>> light then to you the CMBR would not look even remotely symmetrical, one 
>>> hemisphere would look much brighter than the other, which would indicate 
>>> that you and everything in your spaceship, including your clock and your 
>>> brain, were moving at a very different speed than most of the matter in the 
>>> universe. But so what? Time dilation would still be in effect, when you 
>>> used your telescope to look at the Earth (which happens to be moving at a 
>>> speed closer to the average speed of matter) you'd see things back on Earth 
>>> were moving at only 0.4472%  the speed they are on your spaceship (assuming 
>>> 99.999% of light speed). And when observers on Earth look at you they'd see 
>>> that you and everything on your spaceship were were moving at only 0.4472% 
>>>  the speed they are on Earth. Both would see the other moving slowly. And 
>>> none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the CMBR, both see that it 
>>> takes the other 237 seconds to do things that only takes them one second to 
>>> do. As I said before this is odd but not a logical paradox because of the 
>>> disagreement among observers over the meaning of "now". This is explained 
>>> in more detail in the videos on the Twin Paradox that I recommended 
>>> yesterday, the ones you refused to look at because you thought they were 
>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> How about telling me something I don't already know, like why MUST 
>> everything happen, that CAN happen?  I won't waste time reading your 
>> articles. AG 
>>
>
> I'll view your articleS if they give a clear explanation of the breakdown 
> in simultaneity, when each observer sees the (other) traveling clock having 
> a different "now". AG 
>

The issue of the CMB has nothing to do with the Twin Paradox. I was just 
postulating the IF the CMB can be used as clock, there seems to be a time 
defined for the entire universe, as well as absolute rest, contrary to the 
claims of relativity. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1038918e-5108-4d2d-af66-fcb7567c20ce%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> This simultaneity is the Hubble frame.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find 
>> on Internet. What exactly is it? TIA, AG 
>>
>
> It is a frame where this gravitational redshift of CMB or equivalently a 
> time dilation of quantum oscillations that emitted this radiation is 
> homogeneous.
>
> LC
>

Wouldn't that be everywhere at rest wrt the CMB? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab2ddc72-3915-4822-a928-b12806cab8b8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:02:52 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if 
>>> you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature 
>>> decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers in 
>>> all galaxies exists to one part in 100,000.  What are the implications? AG*
>>
>>
>> If you are heading for the Andromeda Galaxy at 99.999% the speed of light 
>> then to you the CMBR would not look even remotely symmetrical, one 
>> hemisphere would look much brighter than the other, which would indicate 
>> that you and everything in your spaceship, including your clock and your 
>> brain, were moving at a very different speed than most of the matter in the 
>> universe. But so what? Time dilation would still be in effect, when you 
>> used your telescope to look at the Earth (which happens to be moving at a 
>> speed closer to the average speed of matter) you'd see things back on Earth 
>> were moving at only 0.4472%  the speed they are on your spaceship (assuming 
>> 99.999% of light speed). And when observers on Earth look at you they'd see 
>> that you and everything on your spaceship were were moving at only 0.4472% 
>>  the speed they are on Earth. Both would see the other moving slowly. And 
>> none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the CMBR, both see that it 
>> takes the other 237 seconds to do things that only takes them one second to 
>> do. As I said before this is odd but not a logical paradox because of the 
>> disagreement among observers over the meaning of "now". This is explained 
>> in more detail in the videos on the Twin Paradox that I recommended 
>> yesterday, the ones you refused to look at because you thought they were 
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> How about telling me something I don't already know, like why MUST 
> everything happen, that CAN happen?  I won't waste time reading your 
> articles. AG 
>

I'll view your article if they give a clear explanation of the breakdown in 
simultaneity, when each observer sees the (other) traveling clock having a 
different "now". AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/811329cb-7732-4f47-9273-657da33b6964%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 12:37:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> This simultaneity is the Hubble frame.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find on 
> Internet. What exactly is it? TIA, AG 
>

It is a frame where this gravitational redshift of CMB or equivalently a 
time dilation of quantum oscillations that emitted this radiation is 
homogeneous.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/805cfefc-49cb-487c-a854-c70c6b28d85c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 4:00:51 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if 
>> you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature 
>> decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers in 
>> all galaxies exists to one part in 100,000.  What are the implications? AG*
>
>
> If you are heading for the Andromeda Galaxy at 99.999% the speed of light 
> then to you the CMBR would not look even remotely symmetrical, one 
> hemisphere would look much brighter than the other, which would indicate 
> that you and everything in your spaceship, including your clock and your 
> brain, were moving at a very different speed than most of the matter in the 
> universe. But so what? Time dilation would still be in effect, when you 
> used your telescope to look at the Earth (which happens to be moving at a 
> speed closer to the average speed of matter) you'd see things back on Earth 
> were moving at only 0.4472%  the speed they are on your spaceship (assuming 
> 99.999% of light speed). And when observers on Earth look at you they'd see 
> that you and everything on your spaceship were were moving at only 0.4472% 
>  the speed they are on Earth. Both would see the other moving slowly. And 
> none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the CMBR, both see that it 
> takes the other 237 seconds to do things that only takes them one second to 
> do. As I said before this is odd but not a logical paradox because of the 
> disagreement among observers over the meaning of "now". This is explained 
> in more detail in the videos on the Twin Paradox that I recommended 
> yesterday, the ones you refused to look at because you thought they were 
> irrelevant.
>
> John K Clark
>

How about telling me something I don't already know, like why MUST 
everything happen, that CAN happen?  I won't waste time reading your 
articles. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ccb6fb5-4a75-4aa7-99b2-fce43c25e209%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if
> you use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature
> decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers in
> all galaxies exists to one part in 100,000. What are the implications? AG*

If you are heading for the Andromeda Galaxy at 99.999% the speed of light
then to you the CMBR would not look even remotely symmetrical, one
hemisphere would look much brighter than the other, which would indicate
that you and everything in your spaceship, including your clock and your
brain, were moving at a very different speed than most of the matter in the
universe. But so what? Time dilation would still be in effect, when you
used your telescope to look at the Earth (which happens to be moving at a
speed closer to the average speed of matter) you'd see things back on Earth
were moving at only 0.4472% the speed they are on your spaceship (assuming
99.999% of light speed). And when observers on Earth look at you they'd see
that you and everything on your spaceship were were moving at only 0.4472%
the speed they are on Earth. Both would see the other moving slowly. And
none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the CMBR, both see that it
takes the other 237 seconds to do things that only takes them one second to
do. As I said before this is odd but not a logical paradox because of the
disagreement among observers over the meaning of "now". This is explained
in more detail in the videos on the Twin Paradox that I recommended
yesterday, the ones you refused to look at because you thought they were
irrelevant.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0y%2B0-%2B0x8gbQ%2BuhizU6uQJVtz%2BPjLOmS%3D3rRruuLVDKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This simultaneity is the Hubble frame.
>
> LC
>

No Wiki article on the "Hubble frame" and no definition that I can find on 
Internet. What exactly is it? TIA, AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61d2f487-e0c2-4d99-b0c0-2cad1b1ca1f6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell

This simultaneity is the Hubble frame.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/faf9e2ab-7151-421c-9b44-63665093689d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:59:05 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: 



 On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
> and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
> puzzles me. AG
>
>
> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>
> Brent
>

 I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the 
 same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
 measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  

>>>
>>> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this 
>>> clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect 
>>> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).  They 
>>> always measure proper time thru spacetime.  The only reason that when 
>>> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled 
>>> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper 
>>> length.  "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a 
>>> function of the path the clock is measuring.  Remember my odometer analogy?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in 
>> space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. 
>> For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through 
>> space-time are irrelevant. AG 
>>
>
> You are making this a whole lot more difficult. The time dilation 
> associated with red shift of radiation is uniform out to a certain distance 
> of around 46 billion light years. It is fairly uniform to within 10^{-5} in 
> isotropy.
>
> LC 
>

Why difficult? I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact; namely, if you 
use the CMBR as a clock (inconvenient to be sure since the temperature 
decline of the CMBR is exceedingly slow), simultaneity for all observers in 
all galaxies exists to one part in 100,000.  What are the implications? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c73baa0e-3726-4d2e-8193-9a2932d8a0fa%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:59 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The time dilation associated with red shift of radiation is uniform out
> to a certain distance of around 46 billion light years. It is fairly
> uniform to within 10^{-5} in isotropy.


And if you have time dilation you've got to also have length contraction if
the measured speed of light is to be the same for all observers.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3e89Zgcsd7Te5gNdGTdGc4Lq7xO4hUknav2yYAdtFUHA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-31 Thread Lawrence Crowell



On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 



 On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


 That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
 and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
 galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
 puzzles me. AG


 Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the 
>>> same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
>>> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  
>>>
>>
>> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this clock! 
>> (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>>
>>
>> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect 
>> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).  They 
>> always measure proper time thru spacetime.  The only reason that when 
>> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled 
>> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper 
>> length.  "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a 
>> function of the path the clock is measuring.  Remember my odometer analogy?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in 
> space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. 
> For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through 
> space-time are irrelevant. AG 
>

You are making this a whole lot more difficult. The time dilation 
associated with red shift of radiation is uniform out to a certain distance 
of around 46 billion light years. It is fairly uniform to within 10^{-5} in 
isotropy.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8fa0adf8-819f-4395-ade7-0d4bdbca7418%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
>>> and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
>>> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
>>> puzzles me. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the same 
>> everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
>> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  
>>
>
> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this clock! 
> (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>
>
> The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect 
> and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).  They 
> always measure proper time thru spacetime.  The only reason that when 
> compared they seem to register different durations is because they traveled 
> different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different proper 
> length.  "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's a 
> function of the path the clock is measuring.  Remember my odometer analogy?
>
> Brent
>

Given that the temperature of the CMBR is the same for every location in 
space-time, it follows that time dilation is not a property of THIS clock. 
For this clock, which is NOT moving through space-time, paths through 
space-time are irrelevant. AG 

>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e142235-e071-4c14-8eab-e06a09cb49d9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ae5dc47-8423-46fe-a9c0-63b3023a3672%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far
removed and one here, would read the same CMBR "time",
regardless of the distant galaxy's speed of recession. But
relativity says otherwise. This is what puzzles me. AG

Ask yourself /*when*/ do they read the same time.

Brent

I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is
the same everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine
if the two measurements are simultaneous or not. AG

But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this
clock! (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going
on? AG

The clocks used in relativity examples are the whatever the most perfect
and stable clock in existence are (in this case cesium atom clocks).
They always measure proper time thru spacetime. The only reason that
when compared they seem to register different durations is because they
traveled different paths thru spacetime and these paths had different
proper length. "Time dilation" is not some function of the clock...it's
a function of the path the clock is measuring. Remember my odometer
analogy?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e142235-e071-4c14-8eab-e06a09cb49d9%40googlegroups.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/56fd957d-d0fe-d6ab-4803-221640d4af6a%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/30/2020 5:29 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far
removed and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless
of the distant galaxy's speed of recession. But relativity says
otherwise. This is what puzzles me. AG

Ask yourself /*when*/ do they read the same time.

Brent

I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the
same everywhere, at any time t,

You're missing the point. "At any time t" is /defined/ as when the CMB
has a certain temperature. It's the same everywhere at time t, because
that's how we defined t. Our model (FLRW) says the expansion is
uniform, so that's the same proper time from the Big Bang. But it's not
the time that photons we're seeing now left the distant galaxy; the
photons we would use to read a distant clock and see that it runs slow.

we can in principle determine if the two measurements are simultaneous
or not. AG

In relativity, simultaneity is not an objective property. It's motion
and coordinate dependent. So think of t as just one of four numbers, (t
x y z) used to label a spacetime event. Then we choose our labeling
system to make our equations look simple. But the labels don't have
physical significance.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4fc556c2-5ebe-4a52-98a4-44b59b07744a%40googlegroups.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8cf9af61-eed4-e01d-4e67-855a34cbf230%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:37:22 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
>>> and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
>>> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
>>> puzzles me. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the same 
>> everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
>> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  
>>
>
> But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this clock! 
> (And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 
>

IOW, since the CMBR clock reading is the same everywhere, this strongly 
suggests that by THIS clock, there is no time dilation. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d929620-709d-4318-8081-dec6e81d08a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and 
>> one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
>> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
>> puzzles me. AG
>>
>>
>> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the same 
> everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
> measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  
>

But regardless of simultaneity or not, there's no dilation of this clock! 
(And AE doesn't say what a clock is.) What the hell is going on? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e142235-e071-4c14-8eab-e06a09cb49d9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 5:09:56 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and 
> one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
> galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
> puzzles me. AG
>
>
> Ask yourself *when* do they read the same time.
>
> Brent
>

I don't know if this helps. Since the temperature of the CMBR is the same 
everywhere, at any time t, we can in principle determine if the two 
measurements are simultaneous or not. AG  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4fc556c2-5ebe-4a52-98a4-44b59b07744a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 1/30/2020 12:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed 
and one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the 
distant galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. 
This is what puzzles me. AG


Ask yourself /*when*/ do they read the same time.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cb2e190-8544-318e-e528-bd4991532098%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/30/2020 10:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan
Grayson wrote:

Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at
near light speed. So according to SR, their clocks
should be ticking at a much slower rates than, say, a
local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical
clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature
of the CMBR. If we tell time by this clock, all clock
readings of all galaxies are identical. So which is
it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than
a local clock in our galaxy, or are both clocks
running at the same rate? TIA, AG

The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic,
not special relativity.

*I know. Now, if you can, please answer my question. AG*

I did below

The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has
the redshift factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric
this is a bit more general with z = e^{Ht} - 1, where for
small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ Ht. The reshift factor
for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR photon with
wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a
millimeter. The peak of the CMB blackbody radiation is 160
GHz and this was produced by radiation peaked at
17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a wavelength
of 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor
is the same as a time dilation, where we can think of
these red shifted photons are representing the slowdown of
clocks (clocks being the quantum oscillations of atoms
etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.

Maybe I was making the wrong assumption; namely, that the CMBR "clock"
reads the same "time" for the far galaxy as compared to its reading in
our galaxy.

"Reads the same time" /*when?*/, is the relevant question...and there's
no absolute answer. If you take the CMB as your clock, you are defining
what "simultaneous at distant points" means. Simultaneity is a relative
attribute. It's relative to state of motion in special relativity and
it's relative to motion through curved spacetime in general
relativity...so you can define it in different ways.

Brent

But this is probably wrong since CMBR as viewed from the far galaxy is
from a much earlier epoch, so the reading cannot be identical. Do you
agree? AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79048b7d-bcba-4cb8-814c-57515239a104%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/30/2020 7:36 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some
observer's clock which is running slower compared to a local
clock in this galaxy, and the CMBR clocks at every location in
the universe which are synchronized, what is the status of
time dilation? Do it exist or not?/

It does. Regardless of what the measured temperature of the CMBR
is if you're moving relative to your twin brother then you will
observe that his local clock is running slower than your local
clock and he will observe that your local clock is running slower
than his local clock. And it's not just clocks that are affected,
minds are too. You will see that it takes your brother longer to
solve a long division problem than it takes you and he will
observe that it takes you longer to solve it than it takes him.
And none of this has anything to do with the temperature of the
CMBR, the only important thing that affects local clocks is the
relative motion between you and your twin brother.

The reason this is odd but not a paradox is because of the
relativity of simultaneity which Dr. Don Lincoln made clear in the
3 videos I recommended yesterday which you obviously didn't watch.
If you're still interested Wikipedia has a rather good article on
the subject:

Relativity of simultaneity

And I'll recommend yet another video although I doubt your
attention span is long enough to watch all of it, it is after all
nearly 4 minutes long:

Relativity of Simultaneity | Special Relativity Ch. 4

Or just ask Google to search for "Simultaneity" and have your pick
of lots of good articles and videos.

John K Clark

Now you seem retarded. Every galaxy observer can use the CMB clock,
and they ALL read the SAME temperature! NO TIME DILATION! AG

We've defined "the same time" as when they see the same temperature.
But if they look at one another's clocks it appears that other clocks
are running slow. You could create a grid of clocks that stayed at the
same distance from you (by radar measure) and they would appear to run
the same speed as your clock...but they would be moving rapidly relative
to the matter near them and the CMB.

Brent

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:33:44 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:

 On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light 
> speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much 
> slower 
> rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical 
> clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we 
> tell time by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are 
> identical. 
> So which is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a 
> local 
> clock in our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
>

 The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic, not special 
 relativity. 

>>>
>>> *I know. Now, if you can, please answer my question. AG*
>>>
>>
>> I did below
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
 The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has the redshift 
 factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric this is a bit more general with 
 z 
 = e^{Ht} - 1, where for small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ Ht. The 
 reshift 
 factor for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR photon with 
 wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a millimeter. The peak 
 of 
 the CMB blackbody radiation is 160 GHz and this was produced by radiation 
 peaked at 17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a wavelength of 
 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor is the same as a 
 time dilation, where we can think of these red shifted photons are 
 representing the slowdown of clocks (clocks being the quantum oscillations 
 of atoms etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.

 LC

>>>
> Maybe I was making the wrong assumption; namely, that the CMBR "clock" 
> reads the same "time" for the far galaxy as compared to its reading in our 
> galaxy. But this is probably wrong since CMBR as viewed from the far galaxy 
> is from a much earlier epoch, so the reading cannot be identical. Do you 
> agree? AG
>

That's not it. I think the two observers, one in a galaxy far removed and 
one here, would read the same CMBR "time", regardless of the distant 
galaxy's speed of recession.  But relativity says otherwise. This is what 
puzzles me. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac4fb99f-a723-4bd5-926e-0995ed2c80dd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. 
 So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
 than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
 the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
 by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
 is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
 our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic, not special 
>>> relativity. 
>>>
>>
>> *I know. Now, if you can, please answer my question. AG*
>>
>
> I did below
>
> LC
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has the redshift 
>>> factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric this is a bit more general with z 
>>> = e^{Ht} - 1, where for small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ Ht. The reshift 
>>> factor for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR photon with 
>>> wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a millimeter. The peak of 
>>> the CMB blackbody radiation is 160 GHz and this was produced by radiation 
>>> peaked at 17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a wavelength of 
>>> 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor is the same as a 
>>> time dilation, where we can think of these red shifted photons are 
>>> representing the slowdown of clocks (clocks being the quantum oscillations 
>>> of atoms etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
Maybe I was making the wrong assumption; namely, that the CMBR "clock" 
reads the same "time" for the far galaxy as compared to its reading in our 
galaxy. But this is probably wrong since CMBR as viewed from the far galaxy 
is from a much earlier epoch, so the reading cannot be identical. Do you 
agree? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79048b7d-bcba-4cb8-814c-57515239a104%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. 
>>> So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
>>> than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
>>> the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
>>> by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
>>> is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
>>> our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic, not special 
>> relativity. 
>>
>
> *I know. Now, if you can, please answer my question. AG*
>

I did below

LC
 

>  
>
>> The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has the redshift 
>> factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric this is a bit more general with z 
>> = e^{Ht} - 1, where for small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ Ht. The reshift 
>> factor for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR photon with 
>> wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a millimeter. The peak of 
>> the CMB blackbody radiation is 160 GHz and this was produced by radiation 
>> peaked at 17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a wavelength of 
>> 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor is the same as a 
>> time dilation, where we can think of these red shifted photons are 
>> representing the slowdown of clocks (clocks being the quantum oscillations 
>> of atoms etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.
>>
>> LC
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e04b6e07-c84e-4c1d-963a-6649e6b0b0a8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:16:48 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. 
>> So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
>> than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
>> the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
>> by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
>> is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
>> our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
>>
>
> The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic, not special 
> relativity. 
>

*I know. Now, if you can, please answer my question. AG*
 

> The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has the redshift 
> factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric this is a bit more general with z 
> = e^{Ht} - 1, where for small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ Ht. The reshift 
> factor for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR photon with 
> wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a millimeter. The peak of 
> the CMB blackbody radiation is 160 GHz and this was produced by radiation 
> peaked at 17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a wavelength of 
> 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor is the same as a 
> time dilation, where we can think of these red shifted photons are 
> representing the slowdown of clocks (clocks being the quantum oscillations 
> of atoms etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.
>
> LC
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ffec524-06c1-4ffa-ba05-1c03650e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 2:57:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So 
> according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
> than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
> the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
> by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
> is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
> our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
>

The physics with distant galaxies is general relativistic, not special 
relativity. The redshift factor v = Hd, in the near linear form, has the 
redshift factor v/c = z = Hd/c. In the FLRW metric this is a bit more 
general with z = e^{Ht} - 1, where for small HT << 1 then t = d/c and z =~ 
Ht. The reshift factor for the CMB is z = 1100, which means that anIR 
photon with wavelength 1000nm is expanded to 1100 microns, or a millimeter. 
The peak of the CMB blackbody radiation is 160 GHz and this was produced by 
radiation peaked at 17.6x10^{4}GHz. This is in the IR region with a 
wavelength of 5,87x10^{-5}cm, in the IR, The z multiplicative factor is the 
same as a time dilation, where we can think of these red shifted photons 
are representing the slowdown of clocks (clocks being the quantum 
oscillations of atoms etc) in this surface of last opaque scatter.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03c789b3-ef18-4f11-8903-b23da4bab6fa%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock 
>> which is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the 
>> CMBR clocks at every location in the universe which are synchronized, what 
>> is the status of time dilation? Do it exist or not?*
>
>
> It does. Regardless of what the measured temperature of the CMBR is if 
> you're moving relative to your twin brother then you will observe that his 
> local clock is running slower than your local clock and he will observe 
> that your local clock is running slower than his local clock. And it's not 
> just clocks that are affected, minds are too. You will see that it takes 
> your brother longer to solve a long division problem than it takes you and 
> he will observe that it takes you longer to solve it than it takes him. And 
> none of this has anything to do with the temperature of the CMBR, the only 
> important thing that affects local clocks is the relative motion between 
> you and your twin brother.
>
 
*Relative motion? I would never have guessed! Why not consider the CMBR as 
the local clock for each galaxy? What then? Does AE precisely define a 
"clock"? AG *

>
> The reason this is odd but not a paradox is because of the relativity of 
> simultaneity which Dr. Don Lincoln made clear in the 3 videos I 
> recommended yesterday which you obviously didn't watch. If you're still 
> interested Wikipedia has a rather good article on the subject:
>
> Relativity of simultaneity 
> 
>
> And I'll recommend yet another video although I doubt your attention span 
> is long enough to watch all of it, it is after all nearly 4 minutes long:
>

*Why the fuck should I view it? It has nothing to do with the problem I 
posed. Obviously, you have no clue. Oh, one other thing; why is it that 
everything that CAN happen, MUST happen? Why do you refuse to answer this 
question? Oh, I know; you have no clue. End of story. AG*

>
> Relativity of Simultaneity | Special Relativity Ch. 4 
> 
>
> Or just ask Google to search for "Simultaneity" and have your pick of 
> lots of good articles and videos.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/de4c996f-541e-4dff-94a6-c30ac55c98d4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity



On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:22:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock 
>> which is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the 
>> CMBR clocks at every location in the universe which are synchronized, what 
>> is the status of time dilation? Do it exist or not?*
>
>
> It does. Regardless of what the measured temperature of the CMBR is if 
> you're moving relative to your twin brother then you will observe that his 
> local clock is running slower than your local clock and he will observe 
> that your local clock is running slower than his local clock. And it's not 
> just clocks that are affected, minds are too. You will see that it takes 
> your brother longer to solve a long division problem than it takes you and 
> he will observe that it takes you longer to solve it than it takes him. And 
> none of this has anything to do with the temperature of the CMBR, the only 
> important thing that affects local clocks is the relative motion between 
> you and your twin brother.
>
> The reason this is odd but not a paradox is because of the relativity of 
> simultaneity which Dr. Don Lincoln made clear in the 3 videos I 
> recommended yesterday which you obviously didn't watch. If you're still 
> interested Wikipedia has a rather good article on the subject:
>
> Relativity of simultaneity 
> 
>
> And I'll recommend yet another video although I doubt your attention span 
> is long enough to watch all of it, it is after all nearly 4 minutes long:
>
> Relativity of Simultaneity | Special Relativity Ch. 4 
> 
>
> Or just ask Google to search for "Simultaneity" and have your pick of 
> lots of good articles and videos.
>
> John K Clark
>

Now you seem retarded. Every galaxy observer can use the CMB clock, and 
they ALL read the SAME temperature! NO TIME DILATION! AG  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6810eea5-aaf3-49ab-9d1c-02071f0fb2f5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:21 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

*> If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; some observer's clock which
> is running slower compared to a local clock in this galaxy, and the CMBR
> clocks at every location in the universe which are synchronized, what is
> the status of time dilation? Do it exist or not?*

It does. Regardless of what the measured temperature of the CMBR is if
you're moving relative to your twin brother then you will observe that his
local clock is running slower than your local clock and he will observe
that your local clock is running slower than his local clock. And it's not
just clocks that are affected, minds are too. You will see that it takes
your brother longer to solve a long division problem than it takes you and
he will observe that it takes you longer to solve it than it takes him. And
none of this has anything to do with the temperature of the CMBR, the only
important thing that affects local clocks is the relative motion between
you and your twin brother.

The reason this is odd but not a paradox is because of the relativity of
simultaneity which Dr. Don Lincoln made clear in the 3 videos I recommended
yesterday which you obviously didn't watch. If you're still interested
Wikipedia has a rather good article on the subject:

Relativity of simultaneity

And I'll recommend yet another video although I doubt your attention span
is long enough to watch all of it, it is after all nearly 4 minutes long:

Relativity of Simultaneity | Special Relativity Ch. 4

Or just ask Google to search for "Simultaneity" and have your pick of lots
of good articles and videos.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2T7NamV3WdBguJF-hQCpd%2BhiYvCG%2BLsZqiKXorBO8veQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-29 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/29/2020 7:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 12:18:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion.
Talk of clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks
that, by definition, run at identical rates when compared at the
same place. "Running slow" really refers to taking a shorter path
(less elapsed proper time) thru spacetime, as reflected in the
metric. As AG noted the "running slow" relation is symmetric; so
it can't be invariant.

Using the CMB is an operational way to define a global time. It
is the same as co-moving coordinates in which matter is, on
average, stationary. But it is a good/useful coordinate system
because it makes the representation of an FLRW model simple.
There's an implicit assumption that the universe is homogenous and
isotropic, which implies that it satisfies an FLRW model. With
that assumption a measurement of curvature locally can be extended
to infer the whole spacetime. Space can be flat while spacetime
is curved, so as to be open or closed.

Brent

Can you answer the question? If we have two clocks at the distant
galaxy; some observer's clock which is running slower compared to a
local clock in this galaxy, and the CMBR clocks at every location in
the universe which are synchronized, what is the status of time
dilation? Do it exist or not? TIA, AG

If you're syncing clocks everywhere to the CMB then you've defined a
global time. You've also implicitly defined a space reference frame
that's stationary with respect to the CMB. There will still be
relativistic doppler shift between clocks because of the expansion rate
of the universe, i.e. if you look at a distant galaxy you will see
shifts in its spectral lines and you will be seeing the galaxy as it was
in the past. It's not though that clocks are running slower on that
galaxy; rather it's definition of the future direction is different (see
my popular lecture explanation of the twin's paradox).

Brent

On 1/29/2020 12:57 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light
speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a
much slower rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH,
there's a physical clock for the entire universe; namely, the
temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time by this clock, all clock
readings of all galaxies are identical. So which is it? Are
clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in
our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c5aa450-761d-4784-9ba3-f25085991a83%40googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6752836c-a025-4a21-b1e5-0a690c1f6576%40googlegroups.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f723aa98-3829-c8eb-99fd-eae3cb1e0e64%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 12:18:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion.  Talk of 
> clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks that, by 
> definition, run at identical rates when compared at the same place.  
> "Running slow" really refers to taking a shorter path (less elapsed proper 
> time) thru spacetime, as reflected in the metric.  As AG noted the "running 
> slow" relation is symmetric; so it can't be invariant.
>
> Using the CMB is an operational way to define a global time.  It is the 
> same as co-moving coordinates in which matter is, on average, stationary.  
> But it is a good/useful coordinate system because it makes the 
> representation of an FLRW model simple.  There's an implicit assumption 
> that the universe is homogenous and isotropic, which implies that it 
> satisfies an FLRW model.  With that assumption a measurement of curvature 
> locally can be extended to infer the whole spacetime.  Space can be flat 
> while spacetime is curved, so as to be open or closed.
>
> Brent
>

Can you answer the question? If we have two clocks at the distant galaxy; 
some observer's clock which is running slower compared to a local clock in 
this galaxy, and the CMBR clocks at every location in the universe which 
are synchronized, what is the status of time dilation? Do it exist or not? 
TIA, AG 

>
> On 1/29/2020 12:57 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So 
> according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
> than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
> the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
> by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
> is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
> our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c5aa450-761d-4784-9ba3-f25085991a83%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6752836c-a025-4a21-b1e5-0a690c1f6576%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-29 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

The idea that some clocks run slower than others is a confusion. Talk of
clocks in general relativity always refers to ideal clocks that, by
definition, run at identical rates when compared at the same place.
"Running slow" really refers to taking a shorter path (less elapsed
proper time) thru spacetime, as reflected in the metric. As AG noted
the "running slow" relation is symmetric; so it can't be invariant.

Using the CMB is an operational way to define a global time. It is the
same as co-moving coordinates in which matter is, on average,
stationary. But it is a good/useful coordinate system because it makes
the representation of an FLRW model simple. There's an implicit
assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic, which implies
that it satisfies an FLRW model. With that assumption a measurement of
curvature locally can be extended to infer the whole spacetime. Space
can be flat while spacetime is curved, so as to be open or closed.

Brent

On 1/29/2020 12:57 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light
speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much
slower rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a
physical clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the
CMBR. If we tell time by this clock, all clock readings of all
galaxies are identical. So which is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies
running slower than a local clock in our galaxy, or are both clocks
running at the same rate? TIA, AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c5aa450-761d-4784-9ba3-f25085991a83%40googlegroups.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bef2d51e-15ac-2900-cad6-ce94f7fadd80%40verizon.net.

Re: A question about relativity



On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 3:23:16 AM UTC-7, smitra wrote:
>
> On 29-01-2020 10:31, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light 
> >> speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much 
> >> slower rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a 
> >> physical clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature of 
> >> the CMBR. If we tell time by this clock, all clock readings of all 
> >> galaxies are identical. So which is it? Are clocks in distant 
> >> galaxies running slower than a local clock in our galaxy, or are 
> >> both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG 
> > 
> > Obviously, the temperature of the CMBR declines exceedingly slowly, 
> > making it an inconvenient clock, but it's still a clock, making the 
> > question above sensible. AG 
> > 
> It's equivalent to a purely SR problem with 3 observers, two of them 
> moving away with opposite velocities from the third. 
>
> Saibal 
>

TY, but I can't relate your comment to the issue I've raised. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b5da3e0-36ff-464d-a0b0-64e1e0c92d97%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question about relativity

2020-01-29 Thread smitra


On 29-01-2020 10:31, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson
wrote:


Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light
speed. So according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much
slower rates than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a
physical clock for the entire universe; namely, the temperature of
the CMBR. If we tell time by this clock, all clock readings of all
galaxies are identical. So which is it? Are clocks in distant
galaxies running slower than a local clock in our galaxy, or are
both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG


Obviously, the temperature of the CMBR declines exceedingly slowly,
making it an inconvenient clock, but it's still a clock, making the
question above sensible. AG

It's equivalent to a purely SR problem with 3 observers, two of them 
moving away with opposite velocities from the third.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f62bf75d8a68b205deaff6ae1674143%40zonnet.nl.

Re: A question about relativity



On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 1:57:25 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So 
> according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
> than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
> the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
> by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
> is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
> our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG
>

Obviously, the temperature of the CMBR declines exceedingly slowly, making 
it an inconvenient clock, but it's still a clock, making the question above 
sensible. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fcecead8-3c4c-4b0e-b9ab-e8a9e7fc4884%40googlegroups.com.

A question about relativity

Considering the distant galaxies, they're receding at near light speed. So 
according to SR, their clocks should be ticking at a much slower rates 
than, say, a local clock in our galaxy. OTOH, there's a physical clock for 
the entire universe; namely, the temperature of the CMBR. If we tell time 
by this clock, all clock readings of all galaxies are identical. So which 
is it? Are clocks in distant galaxies running slower than a local clock in 
our galaxy, or are both clocks running at the same rate? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5c5aa450-761d-4784-9ba3-f25085991a83%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A question for Bruno

2017-04-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

I realise I did not answer this post. As the step 7 is crucial, I will  
make some remark, and try to answer the question. Sorry for the delay  
Charles.


On 28 Aug 2016, at 00:38, Charles Goodwin wrote:

Hi everyone and everything, I was discussing comp and similar things  
with Liz the other day and we came across a sticking point in what I  
think (from memory) is step 7 of the UDA. Maybe you can help?


I'm assuming AR, "Yes, Doctor" and so on. At step 7 we reach the  
point where we assume that a physical Universal Dovetailer can be  
created


Actually, we don't need to assume that. It is a consequence of the  
fact that the physical universe is Turing-complete, like the existence  
of the physical implementation of the universal number (the general  
purpose computer) illustrates. So we can write the code of a Universal  
Dovetailer, and run it.


The infinite tape is not part of the universal Turing machine. It is  
his environment. A number u is universal with respect to an acceptable  
enumaration of partial computable function if phi_u() =  
phi_x(y). ( is coding of a couple of numbers into a number).





and that it runs forever,


Yes, that is the important assumption in step 7, and normally  
discharged in step 8.




and ask what is the probability that my observer moments are  
generated by it, rather than by my brain.


Well, this is simple to compute or evaluate intuitively in a mono- 
universe, there is no chance that your experience remains "out of the  
UD*".


With a multiverse, it is less easy, but there is also no chance, to  
remain in the level zero of the physical reality.






Now ISTM that the UD will have an infinite number of possible  
programmes to run, so even if it runs forever, how does it get on to  
the second step in any of them?


Now I remember why I did not answer, someone else did. And the answer  
was: that is why we have to dovetail, and run all programs little  
piece by little pieces.


All the best to you and Liz,

Bruno







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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Sep 2016, at 17:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:




On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:




On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  
 wrote:



On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete  
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet  
consistent theories


I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories"  
refers to axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like  
arithmetic, I can keep adding the unprovable Godel sentences as  
axioms and so create an unbounded "tower" of systems.  Is that what  
you mean?


Yes, sorta.




and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use  
those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing  
Complete if they only need to compute one algorithm efficiently  
and correctly.


That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given  
an input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't  
have any input.


It has itself as an input. :-P


?

Possibly in a quite novel non standard sense, but I'm afarid this  
could lead to confusion, especially with beginners.


The UD is typically a program without input. You enter its code in  
the language of some universal machine, without giving it any input,  
and it runs forever, meaning it has no output.


Extensionally, it is equivalent with the empty function from the  
empty set to the empty set (the unique element of 0^0 in set  
theoretical term, with 0 identified with the empty set).


Intensionally, assuming computationalism it is all activities of all  
machines in all locally consistent context.


Some would like to add, all thoughts, but the thoughts remain stable  
and make possibly sense only on the infinities on which the First  
Person Indeterminacy operates.


In the 3-1 picture, we can attach a consciousness to a program/ 
machine/3-p-representation..., it is often polite, but in the 1-p  
picture, that is, from the first person perspective "you" are  
related to an infinity (2^aleph_0) of computational histories. The  
UD "runs" you on all real oracles, notably.


Bruno


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




Can the UD diagonalize with almost all possible versions of itself?  
I have forgotten some details...



The giant miracle here is that the class of all programs is immune to  
diagonalization, unlike any class of always stopping programs. So, to  
get all stopping programs, we must generate all programs, and to get  
all stopping executions, there is no choice other than dovetailing on  
all executions, the stopping and non stopping one.
The closure of the set of partial recursive function for  
diagonalization is the main conceptual argument in favor of Church  
thesis, and it is what make the universal machines/numbers, truly  
universal, so to speak.
So yes, the UD can be said to diagonalize itself, but it changes  
nothing: the UD remains invariant for the application of the diagonal.


Best regards Stephen,

Bruno







--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/



 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-16 Thread Stephen Paul King

I apologize but it seems that none of us has time to explain other people's
ideas to each other or to read their papers for ourselves.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt.
>
>
> or not halt. You limit yourself to halting computation.
>
> If each halting computation is simpler than arbitrary computations, it
> happens that the notion of halting computations is more complex than the
> notion of arbitrary computations.
>
> For example, there is no universal halting machine, and there is no UD
> computting all and only all halting computations.
>
> The only way to generate all halting computations necessitate the
> generations of all computations, the halting one and the non halting. There
> is no algorithmic means to separate the halting machine from the non
> halting one.
>
> yet, the halting computations, when you get them all, is what structure
> the "measure space", and that is exploited to get the measure one case by
> the intensional ("material") variant of the self-reference logic,
> restricted to the "halting computations", modeled by the true sigma_1
> sentences.
>
>
>
> Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines...
>
>
> ?
>
> We seem to miss a precise idea of what you are talking about, I'm afraid.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, sorta.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> It has itself as an input. :-P
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegrou

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-16 Thread Stephen Paul King

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> Yes, sorta.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> It has itself as an input. :-P
>
>
> ?
>
> Possibly in a quite novel non standard sense, but I'm afarid this could
> lead to confusion, especially with beginners.
>
> The UD is typically a program without input. You enter its code in the
> language of some universal machine, without giving it any input, and it
> runs forever, meaning it has no output.
>
> Extensionally, it is equivalent with the empty function from the empty set
> to the empty set (the unique element of 0^0 in set theoretical term, with 0
> identified with the empty set).
>
> Intensionally, assuming computationalism it is all activities of all
> machines in all locally consistent context.
>
> Some would like to add, all thoughts, but the thoughts remain stable and
> make possibly sense only on the infinities on which the First Person
> Indeterminacy operates.
>
> In the 3-1 picture, we can attach a consciousness to a 
> program/machine/3-p-representation...,
> it is often polite, but in the 1-p picture, that is, from the first person
> perspective "you" are related to an infinity (2^aleph_0) of computational
> histories. The UD "runs" you on all real oracles, notably.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
Can the UD diagonalize with almost all possible versions of itself? I have
forgotten some details...


-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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

Re: A question for Bruno

On 16 Sep 2016, at 03:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:

The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt.

or not halt. You limit yourself to halting computation.

If each halting computation is simpler than arbitrary computations, it
happens that the notion of halting computations is more complex than
the notion of arbitrary computations.

For example, there is no universal halting machine, and there is no UD
computting all and only all halting computations.

The only way to generate all halting computations necessitate the
generations of all computations, the halting one and the non halting.
There is no algorithmic means to separate the halting machine from the
non halting one.

yet, the halting computations, when you get them all, is what
structure the "measure space", and that is exploited to get the
measure one case by the intensional ("material") variant of the self-
reference logic, restricted to the "halting computations", modeled by
the true sigma_1 sentences.

Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines...

We seem to miss a precise idea of what you are talking about, I'm
afraid.

Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
version, I am looking for theinfinite
tower of incomplete yet consistent theories

I don't understand what you mean by that. I assume "theories"
refers to axiomatic systems. If I take one such system, like
arithmetic, I can keep adding the unprovable Godel sentences as
axioms and so create an unbounded "tower" of systems. Is that what
you mean?

Yes, sorta.

and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use
those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing
Complete if they only need to compute one algorithm efficiently
and correctly.

That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given
an input there is a certain correct output. But the UD doesn't
have any input.

It has itself as an input. :-P

I suppose you can think of it as a null input. But it also has not
output. It doesn't halt. So I'm not sure what you mean by
computing one algorithm efficiently and correctly.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

On 16 Sep 2016, at 01:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet
consistent theories

Yes, sorta.

That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
input there is a certain correct output. But the UD doesn't have
any input.

It has itself as an input. :-P

Possibly in a quite novel non standard sense, but I'm afarid this
could lead to confusion, especially with beginners.

The UD is typically a program without input. You enter its code in the
language of some universal machine, without giving it any input, and
it runs forever, meaning it has no output.

Extensionally, it is equivalent with the empty function from the empty
set to the empty set (the unique element of 0^0 in set theoretical
term, with 0 identified with the empty set).

Intensionally, assuming computationalism it is all activities of all
machines in all locally consistent context.

Some would like to add, all thoughts, but the thoughts remain stable
and make possibly sense only on the infinities on which the First
Person Indeterminacy operates.

In the 3-1 picture, we can attach a consciousness to a program/machine/
3-p-representation..., it is often polite, but in the 1-p picture,
that is, from the first person perspective "you" are related to an
infinity (2^aleph_0) of computational histories. The UD "runs" you on
all real oracles, notably.

Bruno

Brent

This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires
computational universality, but I assure you that it is very
Digital Mechanism friendly. I am after Correct computers, not
Universal computers. An example of such is the TauChain.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
According to Bruno it's in Platonia. It's timeless and doesn't
"go", it just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.

Brent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 20:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet
consistent theories and trying to make sense of computational
languages that could use those theories. Remember that computers do
not need to be Turing Complete if they only need to compute one
algorithm efficiently and correctly.
This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires
computational universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital
Mechanism friendly. I am after Correct computers, not Universal
computers. An example of such is the TauChain.

Robinson Arithmetic (which is basically only the succession, addition
and multiplication laws) is *essentially undecidable*. It means that
it is Turing complete (and thus undecidable and arithmetically
incomplete) and, and that is what Tarski meant by *essentially
undecidable, all its consistent extensions are (even those non
computable).

Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
According to Bruno it's in Platonia. It's timeless and doesn't
"go", it just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.

Brent

On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the
UD coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there
is an implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no
inherent relative order of the threads.

Brent

On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up
with what you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The
numbers are labels, not the change itself.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker
wrote:
In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is
emergent. The "execution" of the program is timeless and
exists in Platonia. So the steps of the UD have no duration,
they are logically prior to time and duration. On the other
hand, I think so called "observer moments" must have duration
in the emergent sense and must overlap. But their relation to
the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.

I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point
a process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of
consciousness unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical
decoupling of the mental from the physical. At the limit, this
means the process underpinning consciousness can be cut up into
infinitesimals.

Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.
Each thread of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted,
but underlying an "observer moment" or a "thought" are
infinitely many threads and there is no reference by which you
can define cutting them all at "the same time". So they make
the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.

Good point.

But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be
them in terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard
analysis, that's not important at this stage. It depends on the
mathematics of the arithmetical measure on 1p experiences (we get
them trough the math of self-reference, but are still a long way
from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).

Bruno

PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through.
Sorry if sent in double exemplars.

But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events
in the different threads relative to one another. In the
materialist theory of mind that is provided by physical time, the
evolution parameter of the wave function. I think that means that
in your theory you have to derive time in order to locate
'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens that you can
assume.

Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is non-public,

Re: A question for Bruno



On 15 Sep 2016, at 17:57, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker   
wrote:
In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is  
emergent.  The "execution" of the program is timeless and exists  
in Platonia.  So the steps of the UD have no duration, they are  
logically prior to time and duration.  On the other hand, I think  
so called "observer moments" must have duration in the emergent  
sense and must overlap.  But their relation to the UD threads is  
more aspirational than proven.


I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a  
process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of  
consciousness unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical  
decoupling of the mental from the physical. At the limit, this  
means the process underpinning consciousness can be cut up into  
infinitesimals.


Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each  
thread of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but  
underlying an "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many  
threads and there is no reference by which you can define cutting  
them all at "the same time".  So they make the "time" of  
consciousness essentially real valued.


Good point.

But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be  
them in terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard  
analysis, that's not important at this stage. It depends on the  
mathematics of the arithmetical measure on 1p experiences (we get  
them trough the math of self-reference, but are still a long way  
from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).


Bruno

PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry  
if sent in double exemplars.


But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in  
the different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist  
theory of mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution  
parameter of the wave function.


OK, but it does not work, as we lost all connection between  
physicalness and consciousness (by UDA).



I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time in  
order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens  
that you can assume.


Indeed. But we already got it through the logics of the first person  
(S4Grz1, X1*).


Note that the physical time is also not well explained in "materialist  
physics". In the DeWitt-Wheeler equation, it disappears, and reappears  
as a local indexical/modal notion. Strictly speaking, physicists have  
not yet an account of reality coherent with both QM and GR, so that is  
an problem in physics too. Anyway, we can't invoke a primitive  
physicalness to explain the conscious appearance of physicalness in  
the digital mechanist frame.


Bruno




Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 19:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if
there have a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds.
What I have trouble with DM is that it is not obvious where we get
that plurality. I still suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's
theorem could solve this problem, but we may lose Turing
completeness. I would happily trade completeness for correctness.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38160/computable-nonstandard-models-for-weak-systems-of-arithemtic/121252

Tennenbaum theorem does not make us losing Turing-completeness. Quite
the contrary, we escape the bound of the computable, which belongs to
all intepretation of arithmetic, standard and non standard as well.

We would loose computationalism, in some sense.

Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi Stathis,

I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry
that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are
unaffected if the timing, order or duration of a and b are
changed." works. AFAIK, this requirement looks a lot like mutual
independence, but it clearly can not be. There must be a non-zero
probability of transitions within the processes at each level of
the tower, something like a 'time' at each.

Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does
not change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from
the definition of supervenience.

That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the
inequality of entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system.
Deriving an arrow of time is not just a matter of figuring out how
to chain labels in observer moments, we need an actual transition
from one state to another in our theory.
Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes
that they could point me to?

If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future
mental state could be computed in real time before a past mental
state; it could have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't
know. Thus, even if there is a real world, with real time and an
arrow of time, the subjective world is timeless.

OK. In the 3-1 picture, where we look at the cloud of true (and
prouvable) sigma_1 sentences, that seems quite reasonable.

Before smoking salvia, I would have added: but *only* in the 3-1
picture. I would have defended the idea that in the 1p picture, the
(1p) subjective experience is bounded to get some duration/
subjective-time aspects, like Brouwer, Bergson, Dogen and other
Heracliteans seemed to claim, and even like the universal machine
seems to claim ([]p & p, the 1p, leads to a logic of intuitionist
time) but salvia succeeded in making me doubt about this. Salvia can
be *quite* dissociative.

Still today, I doubt that consciousness without time makes
subjective sense, but I believe there might be an altered
consciousness state where we feel to live the contrary. Coming back
from that state is a highly surprising and highly confusing
experience. We can memorize only a piece of that coming back.

Bruno

--
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

Re: A question for Bruno

That's a good example, actually!

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> Can you give an example?  What I'm led to think of is something like:
> % Add two and two
> print "4"
> halt
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
> process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
> machines...
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>>> theories
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, sorta.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>>
>>
>> It has itself as an input. :-P
>>
>>
>> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
>> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
>> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

Re: A question for Bruno


Can you give an example?  What I'm led to think of is something like:

% Add two and two
print "4"
halt

Brent



On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: 
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about 
Turing machines...


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:



On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat"
Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of
incomplete yet consistent theories


I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume
"theories" refers to axiomatic systems.  If I take one such
system, like arithmetic, I can keep adding the unprovable
Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded "tower"
of systems. Is that what you mean?


Yes, sorta.




and trying to make sense of computational languages that
could use those theories. Remember that computers do not
need to be Turing Complete if they only need to compute one
algorithm efficiently and correctly.


That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so
given an input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD
doesn't have any input.


It has itself as an input. :-P


I suppose you can think of it as a null input. But it also has not
output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by
computing one algorithm efficiently and correctly.

Brent
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in

the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.




--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com 

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use 
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain 
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted 
as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete 
this message immediately.”


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

Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing:
process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing
machines...

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
>> version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent
>> theories
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
>> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
>> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
>> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>
> Yes, sorta.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
>> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
>> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>>
>>
>> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an
>> input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>>
>
> It has itself as an input. :-P
>
>
> I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not
> output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing one
> algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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

Re: A question for Bruno




On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:



On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet
consistent theories


I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories"
refers to axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like
arithmetic, I can keep adding the unprovable Godel sentences as
axioms and so create an unbounded "tower" of systems.  Is that
what you mean?


Yes, sorta.




and trying to make sense of computational languages that could
use those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be
Turing Complete if they only need to compute one algorithm
efficiently and correctly.


That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given
an input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't
have any input.


It has itself as an input. :-P


I suppose you can think of it as a null input.  But it also has not 
output.  It doesn't halt.  So I'm not sure what you mean by computing 
one algorithm efficiently and correctly.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
> I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to
> axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can keep
> adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an unbounded
> "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?
>

Yes, sorta.



>
>
> and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
> theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
> only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
>
>
> That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an input
> there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.
>

It has itself as an input. :-P



>
>
> Brent
>
>This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
> universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
> I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
> is the TauChain.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
>> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

What I meant was that the subjective experience of time would be the same
whether there was a material universe with real time, a material block
universe without time, or no material universe.

On 16 September 2016 at 02:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> Yet one subjective experiences duration and order.
>
> I think you've misplaced the concrete.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: A question for Bruno




On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete 
version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet 
consistent theories


I don't understand what you mean by that.  I assume "theories" refers to 
axiomatic systems.  If I take one such system, like arithmetic, I can 
keep adding the unprovable Godel sentences as axioms and so create an 
unbounded "tower" of systems.  Is that what you mean?


and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use 
those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing 
Complete if they only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and 
correctly.


That's the view of an algorithm as computing a function; so given an 
input there is a certain correct output.  But the UD doesn't have any input.


Brent

 This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational 
universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism 
friendly. I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An 
example of such is the TauChain.


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't
"go", it just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version,
I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories
and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those
theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they
only need to compute one algorithm efficiently and correctly.
   This seems to be an attack on the UD, which requires computational
universality, but I assure you that it is very Digital Mechanism friendly.
I am after Correct computers, not Universal computers. An example of such
is the TauChain.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it
> just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
> coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
>> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
>> order of the threads.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
>> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
>> labels, not the change itself.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
 In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
 "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
 steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
 duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
 have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
 to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.

>>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point
>>> a process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness
>>> unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from
>>> the physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning
>>> consciousness can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>>> sent in double exemplars.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>>> that you can assume.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099 <%28864%29%20567-3099>
>>
>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work pr

Re: A question for Bruno

According to Bruno it's in Platonia.  It's timeless and doesn't "go", it 
just IS, like 2+2 IS 4.


Brent


On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD 
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there
is an implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no
inherent relative order of the threads.

Brent


On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up
with what you're saying: "...'time' is only a real number..." The
numbers are labels, not the change itself.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker
 wrote:

In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it,
is emergent.  The "execution" of the program is
timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the steps of the
UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time
and duration.  On the other hand, I think so called
"observer moments" must have duration in the emergent
sense and must overlap.  But their relation to the UD
threads is more aspirational than proven.

I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any
point a process underpinning consciousness and leave the
stream of consciousness unchanged; otherwise there would
be a radical decoupling of the mental from the physical.
At the limit, this means the process underpinning
consciousness can be cut up into infinitesimals.


Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's
model.  Each thread of the UD's computation can be cut and
restarted, but underlying an "observer moment" or a
"thought" are infinitely many threads and there is no
reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the
same time".  So they make the "time" of consciousness
essentially real valued.


Good point.

But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say,
be them in terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non
Standard analysis, that's not important at this stage. It
depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical measure on 1p
experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).

Bruno

PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone
through. Sorry if sent in double exemplars.


But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the
events in the different threads relative to one another.  In
the materialist theory of mind that is provided by physical
time, the evolution parameter of the wave function.  I think
that means that in your theory you have to derive time in
order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no
givens that you can assume.

Brent
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a

topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe

.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.




-- 


Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099 

stephe...@provensecure.com 

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that

Re: A question for Bruno

I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have
a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble
with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still
suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this
problem, but we may lose Turing completeness. I would happily trade
completeness for correctness.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38160/computable-nonstandard-models-for-weak-systems-of-arithemtic/121252

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> OK. In the 3-1 picture, where we look at the cloud of true (and prouvable)
> sigma_1 sentences, that seems quite reasonable.
>
> Before smoking salvia, I would have added: but *only* in the 3-1 picture.
> I would have defended the idea that in the 1p picture, the (1p) subjective
> experience is bounded to get some duration/subjective-time aspects, like
> Brouwer, Bergson, Dogen and other Heracliteans seemed to claim, and even
> like the universal machine seems to claim ([]p & p, the 1p,  leads to a
> logic of intuitionist time) but salvia succeeded in making me doubt about
> this. Salvia can be *quite* dissociative.
>
> Still today, I doubt that consciousness without time makes subjective
> sense, but I believe there might be an altered consciousness state where we
> feel to live the contrary.  Coming back from that state is a highly
> surprising and highly confusing experience. We can memorize only a piece of
> that coming back.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G

Re: A question for Bruno

2016-09-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi Stathis,

   I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry  
that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are  
unaffected if the timing, order or duration of a and b are changed."  
works. AFAIK, this requirement looks a lot like mutual independence,  
but it clearly can not be. There must be a non-zero probability of  
transitions within the processes at each level of the tower,  
something like a 'time' at each.


Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not  
change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the  
definition of supervenience.



   That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the  
inequality of entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system.  
Deriving an arrow of time is not just a matter of figuring out how  
to chain labels in observer moments, we need an actual transition  
from one state to another in our theory.
   Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that  
they could point me to?


If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not  
necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future  
mental state could be computed in real time before a past mental  
state; it could have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't  
know. Thus, even if there is a real world, with real time and an  
arrow of time, the subjective world is timeless.


OK. In the 3-1 picture, where we look at the cloud of true (and  
prouvable) sigma_1 sentences, that seems quite reasonable.


Before smoking salvia, I would have added: but *only* in the 3-1  
picture. I would have defended the idea that in the 1p picture, the  
(1p) subjective experience is bounded to get some duration/subjective- 
time aspects, like Brouwer, Bergson, Dogen and other Heracliteans  
seemed to claim, and even like the universal machine seems to claim  
([]p & p, the 1p,  leads to a logic of intuitionist time) but salvia  
succeeded in making me doubt about this. Salvia can be *quite*  
dissociative.


Still today, I doubt that consciousness without time makes subjective  
sense, but I believe there might be an altered consciousness state  
where we feel to live the contrary.  Coming back from that state is a  
highly surprising and highly confusing experience. We can memorize  
only a piece of that coming back.


Bruno




--
Stathis Papaioannou

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD
coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an
> implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative
> order of the threads.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
> you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
> labels, not the change itself.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>>
>> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
>> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
>> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
>> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
>> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>>
>>
>> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
>> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
>> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
>> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
>> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>>
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
>> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
>> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
>> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
>> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
>> sent in double exemplars.
>>
>>
>> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
>> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
>> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
>> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
>> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
>> that you can assume.
>>
>> Brent
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>> pic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>  “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf

Re: A question for Bruno

In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an 
implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent 
relative order of the threads.


Brent


On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with 
what you're saying: "...'time' is only a real number..." The numbers 
are labels, not the change itself.


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker
 wrote:

In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is
emergent.  The "execution" of the program is timeless and
exists in Platonia.  So the steps of the UD have no
duration, they are logically prior to time and duration. On
the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap. But
their relation to the UD threads is more aspirational than
proven.

I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point
a process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of
consciousness unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical
decoupling of the mental from the physical. At the limit, this
means the process underpinning consciousness can be cut up into
infinitesimals.


Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model. 
Each thread of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted,

but underlying an "observer moment" or a "thought" are
infinitely many threads and there is no reference by which you
can define cutting them all at "the same time".  So they make
the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.


Good point.

But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be
them in terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard
analysis, that's not important at this stage. It depends on the
mathematics of the arithmetical measure on 1p experiences (we get
them trough the math of self-reference, but are still a long way
from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).

Bruno

PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through.
Sorry if sent in double exemplars.


But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events
in the different threads relative to one another.  In the
materialist theory of mind that is provided by physical time, the
evolution parameter of the wave function.  I think that means that
in your theory you have to derive time in order to locate
'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens that you can
assume.

Brent
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in

the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.




--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com 

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use 
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain 
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential 
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted 
as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete 
this message immediately.”


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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options,

Re: A question for Bruno

Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stathis,
>>
>>I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we
>> need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the
>> timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this
>> requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not
>> be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the
>> processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each.
>>
>
> Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not
> change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the
> definition of supervenience.
>
>
>>
>>That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of
>> entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of
>> time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer
>> moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our
>> theory.
>>Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they
>> could point me to?
>>
>
> If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not
> necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental
> state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could
> have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there
> is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world
> is timeless.
>
>
> Yet one subjective experiences duration and order.
>
> I think you've misplaced the concrete.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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

Re: A question for Bruno




On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King 
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:


Hi Stathis,

 I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry
that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are
unaffected if the timing, order or duration of a and b are
changed." works. AFAIK, this requirement looks a lot like mutual
independence, but it clearly can not be. There must be a non-zero
probability of transitions within the processes at each level of
the tower, something like a 'time' at each.


Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not 
change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the 
definition of supervenience.


 That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the
inequality of entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system.
Deriving an arrow of time is not just a matter of figuring out how
to chain labels in observer moments, we need an actual transition
from one state to another in our theory.
 Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that
they could point me to?


If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not 
necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future 
mental state could be computed in real time before a past mental 
state; it could have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. 
Thus, even if there is a real world, with real time and an arrow of 
time, the subjective world is timeless.


Yet one subjective experiences duration and order.

I think you've misplaced the concrete.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A question for Bruno

There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what
you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are
labels, not the change itself.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent.  The
>> "execution" of the program is timeless and exists in Platonia.  So the
>> steps of the UD have no duration, they are logically prior to time and
>> duration.  On the other hand, I think so called "observer moments" must
>> have duration in the emergent sense and must overlap.  But their relation
>> to the UD threads is more aspirational than proven.
>>
> I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a process
> underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of consciousness unchanged;
> otherwise there would be a radical decoupling of the mental from the
> physical. At the limit, this means the process underpinning consciousness
> can be cut up into infinitesimals.
>
>
> Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model.  Each thread
> of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but underlying an
> "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many threads and there is
> no reference by which you can define cutting them all at "the same time".
> So they make the "time" of consciousness essentially real valued.
>
>
> Good point.
>
> But that is where the "infinitesimal" comes in, I would say, be them in
> terms of Cauchy sequences or in term of Non Standard analysis, that's not
> important at this stage. It depends on the mathematics of the arithmetical
> measure on 1p experiences (we get them trough the math of self-reference,
> but are still a long way from an arithmetical Gleason theorem).
>
> Bruno
>
> PS wrote this mail yesterday, seems to not have gone through. Sorry if
> sent in double exemplars.
>
>
> But the 'time' is only a real number if you can order the events in the
> different threads relative to one another.  In the materialist theory of
> mind that is provided by physical time, the evolution parameter of the wave
> function.  I think that means that in your theory you have to derive time
> in order to locate 'thoughts' or 'observer moments'; they are no givens
> that you can assume.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> topic/everything-list/FnHZFBf-Acw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

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

Re: A question for Bruno