subject:"Two apparently different forms of entropy"


meekerdb wrote:


ISTM there are two ways of looking at it.  In one you say before the 
event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites 
a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened.  The energy before x was the 
same as after x, so energy is conserved.  In the other you say x 
happened with probability a in the multiverse, y happened with 
probability b in the multiverse, z happened with probability c in the 
multiverse,...  And in each of x,y,z energy was conserved and since 
a+b+c+...=1 energy is conserved in the multiverse. Non-conservation only 
appears when you use these two pictures inconsistently.


This seems to be the same as the renormalization that Wilczek talks 
about -- you essentially re-weight energies in the same way as you 
re-weight probabilities.



 From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) 
"energy" is just the conjugate variable of "time".  We want our theories 
to apply at all times so we seek formulations of energy and time that do 
this as simply as possible.  Having a conserved quantity called "energy" 
is a consequence of having theories that apply uniformly in time.


Without local energy conservation QM, on which MWI is based, is in real 
trouble.


Bruce

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread meekerdb

On 11/24/2014 2:54 PM, LizR wrote:
Wilczek also says something like "this only seems like a problem if you assume energy is
a substance".

I would also add

* You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views aren't possible
in the MWI.

* The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable, and you can't
add to the infinite mass/energy already available.

ISTM there are two ways of looking at it. In one you say before the event there were
several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened.
The energy before x was the same as after x, so energy is conserved. In the other you say
x happened with probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the
multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,... And in each of x,y,z
energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is conserved in the multiverse.
Non-conservation only appears when you use these two pictures inconsistently.

From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) "energy" is just the
conjugate variable of "time". We want our theories to apply at all times so we seek
formulations of energy and time that do this as simply as possible. Having a conserved
quantity called "energy" is a consequence of having theories that apply uniformly in 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread LizR

Wilczek also says something like "this only seems like a problem if you
assume energy is a substance".

I would also add

* You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views
aren't possible in the MWI.

* The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable,
and you can't add to the infinite mass/energy already available.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread John Mikes

Or: the MWI of my NARRATIVE; as in the Plenitude's infinite equilibration
(more than symmetry) 'similars' get to close for an equilibrated comfort,
the formed knots(?) expose some complexity (forbidden!) that dissipates as
it forms, YET in the process form a (transitional - complex?) world -
callable *a universe*. So every such universe is different because of the
kind of Plenitude-ingredients that formed it. Ours is a pretty primitive
one (I am modest). We look at it from the inside and do not see ant further
(argument against contacting OTHER worlds).
THEY (??) *may* contact us - see the 'Zookeeper Theory'.
We are all contempraries, Plenitude does not carry a time-handicap. Only
*within* our 'world' do we acknowledge the arrow of time to satisfy our
worldviews.

But award-winning physicist-scientists do not get involved in such ideas.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM, LizR  wrote:

> None of this is relevant if the multiverse differentiates rather than
> splitting. Then you ends with the same number of photons you started with;
> the only difference is that previously they were fungible, but now they
> aren't. I thought the general view was that the MWI involves
> differentiation of identical worlds rather than one world splitting into
> lots of others?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.
>>
>
> I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek:
>
> http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf


Excerpt: "In this precise sense those two branches describe mutually
inaccessible (decoherent) worlds, both made of the same materials, and
both occupying the same space. "

Two whole worlds of extra energy and matter. You got to be kidding.

>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett
>> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a
>> photon at
>> the same energy and frequency as the original photon
>> but in
>> a different world. So the total energy in the
>> multiverse
>> will locally have increased by the number of
>> detectors times
>> the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is
>> to
>> detect only one photon of the same energy and
>> frequency as
>> the original photon.
>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has
>> to be
>> accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE,
>> and that
>> is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It
>> satisfies
>> energy conservation by construction (time translation
>> invariance and
>> Noether's theorem).
>>
>> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
>> branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic
>> only
>> for the multiverse.
>>
>>
>> Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No
>> conservation. No renormalization results in chaos.
>>
>>
>> Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not
>> affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly,
>> but doesn't lead to difficulties.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Richard Ruquist wrote:

Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.


I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek:

http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf

Bruce



On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


Richard Ruquist wrote:



On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a
photon at
the same energy and frequency as the original photon
but in
a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse
will locally have increased by the number of
detectors times
the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
detect only one photon of the same energy and
frequency as
the original photon.


... or the conservation of energy is something which has
to be
accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.



I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE,
and that
is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies
energy conservation by construction (time translation
invariance and
Noether's theorem).

You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic
only
for the multiverse.


Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No
conservation. No renormalization results in chaos.


Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not
affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly,
but doesn't lead to difficulties.

Bruce


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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread LizR

None of this is relevant if the multiverse differentiates rather than
splitting. Then you ends with the same number of photons you started with;
the only difference is that previously they were fungible, but now they
aren't. I thought the general view was that the MWI involves
differentiation of identical worlds rather than one world splitting into
lots of others?

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at
>> the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in
>> a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse
>> will locally have increased by the number of detectors times
>> the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
>> detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as
>> the original photon.
>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be
>> accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that
>> is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies
>> energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and
>> Noether's theorem).
>>
>> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
>> branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only
>> for the multiverse.
>>
>>
>> Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation.
>> No renormalization results in chaos.
>>
>
> Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect
> the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't
> lead to difficulties.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Richard Ruquist wrote:



On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at
the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in
a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse
will locally have increased by the number of detectors times
the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as
the original photon.


... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be
accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.



I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that
is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies
energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and
Noether's theorem).

You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only
for the multiverse.


Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. 
No renormalization results in chaos.


Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect 
the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't 
lead to difficulties.


Bruce

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>  With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
>>> energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So
>>> the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the
>>> number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve
>>> energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the
>>> original photon.
>>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
>> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>
>
> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just
> a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation
> by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem).
>
> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise
> energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse.


Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No
renormalization results in chaos.

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same 
energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. 
So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by 
the number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to 
conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and 
frequency as the original photon. 


... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted 
in branches, not in the multiverse.



I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is 
just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy 
conservation by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's 
theorem).


You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise 
energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse.


Bruce

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted in
> branches, not in the multiverse.
>

I agree. Unlike the second law, which is more like a law of logic than of
physics, the first law (conservation of energy) is more a result of
happenstance.
According to Noether's theorem the conservation of energy exists because
the laws of physics have remained the same from when our branch first
existed to today, and conservation of momentum exists because physical law
remains the same from one place in our branch to another place. All that is
true in our branch but need not be true of the entire multiverse.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
>> slits
>>
>> Richard: You should be ashamed
>>
>>
>> That's hardly an argument.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
>>
>> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
>> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
>> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
>> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
>> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
>> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
>> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
>> can stop here ...
>>
>
> Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
> incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
> So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
> where r is distance from the hole.
> If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
> density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
> sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
> photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
> make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
> wrong.
>
> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
> and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
> energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
> detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
> detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
> photon.
>
>
>
> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>

Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
quantum probabilities

>
>
>
>
>
>
> But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
>> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
>> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
>> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
>> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>>
>
>
> My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.
>
>
> That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
> making directly the physical into something psychological.
>
>
Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
branch

>
>
>
> Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could
> possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional
> muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the physical
> space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just
> how I see reality.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
>> wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
>> computations.
>>
>>
> I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
> illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.
>
>
> And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before the
> 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
> because there are no evidence for it.
>


I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?

>
>
>
> I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
> waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
> not an argument..
>
> My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
> physical as MWI poses,
>
>
> Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist
> (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing
> the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when
> seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not
> satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats.
>
>
>
Yes, many-dream arithmetic is part of Math Space

>
> would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and
> more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be
> illusion.
>
>
> Unless energy is an illusion.
>

Of course, along with matter.

>
>
>
> Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from
> Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block
> multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.
>
>
> Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist
> theology. But

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through  
two slits


Richard: You should be ashamed


That's hardly an argument.

Agreed

Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical  
phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality  
would make a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector,  
like sometimes finding literally the photon going in both hole. In  
that case, the energy would be double, and the schroedinger  
"diffusion" of the wave could be used to ... create energy. A  
quantum perpetual machine could be constructed, and, pace George  
Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we can stop  
here ...


Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best.  
The incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from  
ray optics. So if waves could carry energy, the energy density  
would  drop by 1/r^2 where r is distance from the hole.
If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the  
energy density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the  
spherical sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a  
fraction of the photon energy. So there is not enough energy  
incident on any detector to make a photon of the original energy.  
That's classical thinking and it is wrong.


With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same  
energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different  
world. So the total energy in the multiverse will locally have  
increased by the number of detectors times the photon energy. The  
only way to conserve energy is to detect only one photon of the same  
energy and frequency as the original photon.



... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be  
accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.








But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the  
people, fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor  
product, which, with computationalism, should be a mirror of the  
fact that we are indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences,  
where the ortholattice structure is determined by the logic of self- 
reference.



My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.


That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological  
phenomenon, making directly the physical into something psychological.





Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that  
could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4  
dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With  
collapse, the physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That  
is not an argument. It is just how I see reality.


OK.




For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but  
the wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect  
on all computations.



I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All  
is illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and  
Buddhism.


And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before  
the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this  
weird, because there are no evidence for it.




I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real,  
but that waves are math objects and particles are physical objects.  
Again that is not an argument..


My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become  
entirely physical as MWI poses,


Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist  
(the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by  
introducing the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that  
arithmetic got when seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and  
the MW are not satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats.




would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more  
and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW  
reality must be illusion.


Unless energy is an illusion.




Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from  
Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block  
multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.


Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist  
theology. But the logic of self-reference seems to be capable of  
explaining it, by imposing reversibility and linearity at the sigma_1  
bottom (the global indeterminacy domain of the first person).






The alternative is some kind of mathematical  wave collapse to  
conserve both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a  
unique reality where time matters.


From the first person point of view.


I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement properties,  
that collapse may be instantaneous.

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
> slits
>
> Richard: You should be ashamed
>
>
> That's hardly an argument.
>

Agreed

>
> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
> can stop here ...
>

Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
where r is distance from the hole.
If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
wrong.

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
photon.

But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>

My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. Everything else
is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could possibly happen
can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional muliverse that I
call the Math Space With collapse, the physical space becomes lines
in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just how I see reality.

For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave
> is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
> computations.
>
>
I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. I
prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
not an argument..

My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
physical as MWI poses, would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to
exist, and more and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So
MW reality must be illusion.

Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from
Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block
multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.

The alternative is some kind of mathematical  wave collapse to conserve
both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where
time matters. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement
properties, that collapse may be instantaneous.But that collapse mechanism
uses experiment-derived properties rather than math for lack of any time
dependence.
Richard

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
>>
>>
>> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
>> doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
>> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
>> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
>> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
>> a zero.
>>
>> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality,
>> and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all
>> computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical
>> reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative
>> notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win
>> the limit measure "game".
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>

> It see

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through  
two slits


Richard: You should be ashamed


That's hardly an argument.

Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical  
phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would  
make a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like  
sometimes finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that  
case, the energy would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of  
the wave could be used to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual  
machine could be constructed, and, pace George Levy, but following  
John Clark's quote of Eddington, we can stop here ...
But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the  
people, fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor  
product, which, with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact  
that we are indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where  
the ortholattice structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the  
wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on  
all computations.


Bruno






On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.


I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define  
energy. I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through  
two slits, and I doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500  
parallel superposition state. Energy is a local relative (gauge)  
notion, which I am not sure can be easily applied to the whole  
configuration space, which energy can be put a zero.


Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical  
reality, and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of  
all computations including the one with oracle are run in the  
arithmetical reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an  
internal relative notion. Of course we need to justify why the  
reversible computations win the limit measure "game".


Bruno





On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:
On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a  
whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I  
would say.


Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.

Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the  
multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because  
branches are only approximately defined?




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

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


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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread LizR

On 24 November 2014 at 00:32, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
>
> So I assume that if the branches don't multiply, but only differentiate
from a continuum of identical universes (which David Deutsch says is what
they do) the energy stays the same.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread LizR

On 24 November 2014 at 09:43, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/23/2014 12:52 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>>>  It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>>>
>>>Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>>
>>Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.
>
>
> It's not exactly that energy is non-constant; energy is locally
> conserved.  The problem is that total energy is in general undefined
> because there's no invariant way to add up the energy from over there with
> energy here.  Of course the much anticipated theory of quantum gravity
> might change this.
>
>
Also it isn't possible to add up energy from "over then" with energy now.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread meekerdb

On 11/23/2014 12:52 AM, LizR wrote:
On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist > wrote:

It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
whole, where
information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.

Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.

Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

It's not exactly that energy is non-constant; energy is locally conserved. The problem is
that total energy is in general undefined because there's no invariant way to add up the
energy from over there with energy here. Of course the much anticipated theory of quantum
gravity might change this.

Brent

I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the multiverse, in the
MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are only approximately defined?

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread Richard Ruquist

Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits

Richard: You should be ashamed

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
>
>
> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
> doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
> a zero.
>
> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and
> all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations
> including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it
> is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course
> we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure
> "game".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
 It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
 whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would 
 say.

 Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>>>
>>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.
>>
>> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
>> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are
>> only approximately defined?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.


I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy.  
I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits,  
and I doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel  
superposition state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which  
I am not sure can be easily applied to the whole configuration space,  
which energy can be put a zero.


Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality,  
and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all  
computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical  
reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal  
relative notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible  
computations win the limit measure "game".


Bruno





On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:
On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a  
whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I  
would say.


Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.

Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the  
multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because  
branches are only approximately defined?




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

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


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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread Richard Ruquist

Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>>>
>>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>>
>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.
>
> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are
> only approximately defined?
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread LizR

On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole,
>> where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>>
>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>
> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are
only approximately defined?

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:



On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one,  
in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of  
a new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that  
split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to  
a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a  
relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have  
dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new  
information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred,  
which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing,  
and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI  
preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse.




Bruno proved that information is not conserved.


?

On the contrary, I insist that information is conserved in the  
global picture. Unitary evolution conserves basically everything,  
the scalar product, the probabilities, information, etc. It is the  
collapse which introduces an abnormal elevation of information in  
the memories of the subsystem involved, but this is already  
explained in the self-suplication: the guy who wake up in Washington  
get one bit of information, and the guy who wakes up in Moscow get  
one bit of information, despite no information is created in the  
duplication.





Collapse conserves energy.



The collapse does not make sense to me. I don't know what is the  
collapse, except a magical non local trick to pretend that we are  
unique.



I give up. Bruno, you have to learn for yourself how collapse and QM  
conserves energy.
Just think of a single pinhole experiment like Einstein did. One  
particle in, the same particle out, every time.
Seems you are so anti-materialistic that energy is just an illusion  
and need not be conserved.



I have just no clue why you think that energy is not conserved in the  
MWI. Unfortunately I will be rather busy up to the 15 december, so you  
might have time to build up an argument showing clearly why you think  
the MWI does not conserve energy. If I find some time, I will on my  
par try to give you an argument showing that the MW does conserve  
energy.


Bruno





Richard

Well, I came in this list, because it was based on the appreciation  
of the many-worlds, if not "verything" idea, given that I show that  
computationalism entails a many-dream interpretation of elementary  
arithmetic, from which the many interfering compuations must be  
derived, so that we can test computationalism.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new  
information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred,  
which adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing,  
and in any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI  
preserves information afaics, by having the wave not collapse.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

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


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

Visit this group at http://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,

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 21 Nov 2014, at 11:07, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total  
energy

and information in the universe.
Richard


Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.

Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of  
the universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the  
configuration space (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic,  
reversible, and let the probabilities and the information  
invariant. It is also local. And it explains why the memories of  
the observers contains appearance of indeterminacy (in a way  
coherent with computationalism that Everett assumed), non-locality,  
irreversibility, etc.


Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would  
just contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM  
is false when observers do measurement. But this has never been  
successfully clarified, imo.



With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire  
wave function is mapped out on the detector screen.


Locally, I mean in your branch of the universal wave (say). But the  
number of branch is the same, in the differentiation (as opposed to  
splitting) view.




Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in  
an energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.


It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a  
whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I  
would say.


Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.


Not only I think it is constant, but I think it could be null. Cf the  
Dewitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.


I will think more about this, because I am a bit late in my work.

Bruno





Richard
Bruno




Richard


Bruno





--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "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 http://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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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


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

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


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

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


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



--
You re

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>

 The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
 energy
 and information in the universe.
 Richard

>>>
>>>
>>> Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.
>>>
>>> Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
>>> evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of the
>> universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
>> (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
>> probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
>> explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
>> indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
>> assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.
>>
>> Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
>> contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
>> observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
>> imo.
>>
>
>
> With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
> function is mapped out on the detector screen.
>
>
> Locally, I mean in your branch of the universal wave (say). But the number
> of branch is the same, in the differentiation (as opposed to splitting)
> view.
>
>
>
> Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
> energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.
>
>
> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole,
> where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>
> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
Richard

> Bruno
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>>> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>
>>> Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>>> (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>
>> Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
>> - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
>> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
>> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
>> the wave not collapse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bruno proved that information is not conserved.
>
>
> ?
>
> On the contrary, I insist that information is conserved in the global
> picture. Unitary evolution conserves basically everything, the scalar
> product, the probabilities, information, etc. It is the collapse which
> introduces an abnormal elevation of information in the memories of the
> subsystem involved, but this is already explained in the self-suplication:
> the guy who wake up in Washington get one bit of information, and the guy
> who wakes up in Moscow get one bit of information, despite no information
> is created in the duplication.
>
>
>
> Collapse conserves energy.
>
>
>
> The collapse does not make sense to me. I don't know what is the collapse,
> except a magical non local trick to pretend that we are unique.
>


I give up. Bruno, you have to learn for yourself how collapse and QM
conserves energy.
Just think of a single pinhole experiment like Einstein did. One particle
in, the same particle out, every time.
Seems you are so anti-materialistic that energy is just an illusion and
need not be conserved.
Richard

>
> Well, I came in this list, because it was based on the appreciation of the
> many-worlds, if not "verything" idea, given that I show that
> computationalism entails a many-dream interpretation of elementary
> arithmetic, from which the many interfering compuations must be derived, so
> that we can test computationalism.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
>> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>>
>>  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new
>> information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds
>> some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds
>> that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics,
>> by having the wave not collapse.
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/20/2014 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no  
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what  
scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.


I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook,  
and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a  
philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief  
that there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.


Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not  
do philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of  
God-gap type of explanation.


It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule.


The collapse is not the Born rule. You can add the Born rule, like  
Hartle and Graham, or derive it from the SWE, like Preskill,  
Selesnick, Destouches-février, and Gleason, with more or less  
implicit use of the FPI (which then must be extended to the full  
arithmetical domain).
There is only projections, which correspond to yes-no observable.  
The spectral decomposition is all we need, + Gleason, or more  
simple treatment.


Gleason says IF the Hilbert ray implies probabilities they must come  
from the Born rule.  But it doesn't say why they should imply  
probabilities.


So it reduces the Born rule to the easy explanation of where the  
probabilities come from: the self-differentiation due to the self- 
superposition. That is the probabilities comes from the FPI.










Without it, there's no way to connect wave functions to  
probabilities and no way to test the theory.


The probabilities comes from the FPI on the terms where the  
observers appears in the relevant relative states. It is just the  
same first person selection that the one in the WM-duplication  
thought experience.


But "first person selection" is the same as collapsing the wave  
function for each person.  They renormalize it to reflect that it's  
either Moscow or Washington.


Yes, exactly. It the same ... for each person. That is why we don't  
need to introduce a collapse which contradicts the unitarity.


Bruno





Brent



On the contrary, the collapse introduces a lot of magic non  
described by the SWE, like indeterminacy, non-locality,  
irreversibility, etc.


Bruno






Brent


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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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



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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total  
energy

and information in the universe.
Richard


Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.

Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of  
the universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the  
configuration space (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic,  
reversible, and let the probabilities and the information invariant.  
It is also local. And it explains why the memories of the observers  
contains appearance of indeterminacy (in a way coherent with  
computationalism that Everett assumed), non-locality,  
irreversibility, etc.


Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would  
just contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM  
is false when observers do measurement. But this has never been  
successfully clarified, imo.



With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire  
wave function is mapped out on the detector screen.


Locally, I mean in your branch of the universal wave (say). But the  
number of branch is the same, in the differentiation (as opposed to  
splitting) view.




Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in  
an energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.


It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a  
whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I  
would say.


Bruno




Richard


Bruno





--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

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

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



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

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


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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 Nov 2014, at 13:59, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same  
concept of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark,


Computationalism has gone trans-tegmark well before Tegmark.



with this. Why not compare the super cosmos to be a data storing  
thing like a database, rather than an acorn, hold merely biological  
data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not computational?


Computationalism does not leave much choice in the matter, but the  
physical, psychological, and theological realties are shown top be  
highly non computational. Arithmetic seen from inside is so big that  
even mathematicalism fails, even if it remains a good approximation.  
yet, the first person notion are not mathematical object, nor even  
anything describable in a third person way.





Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then just a  
random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and  
idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that  
the universe does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this.



I have very often explain that IF "we" are machine, then the universe  
cannot be a machine a priori, unless some number's conspiracy (which  
is not so easy to discard as the Riemann hypothesis does indicate some  
perversity in the behavior of numbers. The Moonshine conjecture  
indicates this too.


Bruno

If only one universe results, information has been created -  
genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as  
which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only  
in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved,  
because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out  
(like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one,  
in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a  
new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that  
split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to  
a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a  
relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs  
on the name. Patent Pending!


If only one universe results, information has been created -  
genuinely random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as  
which way a photon went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only  
in the multiverse view that the information content is preserved,  
because you have all possible outcomes and overall they cancel out  
(like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)


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

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

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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:



On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one,  
in which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a  
new clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that  
split off when a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to  
a data file. If this is so, then part of the multiverse is a  
relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs  
on the name. Patent Pending!
Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new  
information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which  
adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in  
any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves  
information afaics, by having the wave not collapse.




Bruno proved that information is not conserved.


?

On the contrary, I insist that information is conserved in the global  
picture. Unitary evolution conserves basically everything, the scalar  
product, the probabilities, information, etc. It is the collapse which  
introduces an abnormal elevation of information in the memories of the  
subsystem involved, but this is already explained in the self- 
suplication: the guy who wake up in Washington get one bit of  
information, and the guy who wakes up in Moscow get one bit of  
information, despite no information is created in the duplication.





Collapse conserves energy.



The collapse does not make sense to me. I don't know what is the  
collapse, except a magical non local trick to pretend that we are  
unique.


Well, I came in this list, because it was based on the appreciation of  
the many-worlds, if not "verything" idea, given that I show that  
computationalism entails a many-dream interpretation of elementary  
arithmetic, from which the many interfering compuations must be  
derived, so that we can test computationalism.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new  
information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which  
adds some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in  
any case adds that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves  
information afaics, by having the wave not collapse.


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

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

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

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


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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread meekerdb


On 11/20/2014 8:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical 
franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out 
how the world works.


I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and which is used by 
bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical axiom relying on a religious 
belief: the belief that there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.


Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do philosophy, but of 
course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of explanation.


It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule.


The collapse is not the Born rule. You can add the Born rule, like Hartle and Graham, or 
derive it from the SWE, like Preskill, Selesnick, Destouches-février, and Gleason, with 
more or less implicit use of the FPI (which then must be extended to the full 
arithmetical domain).
There is only projections, which correspond to yes-no observable. The spectral 
decomposition is all we need, + Gleason, or more simple treatment.


Gleason says IF the Hilbert ray implies probabilities they must come from the Born rule.  
But it doesn't say why they should imply probabilities.






Without it, there's no way to connect wave functions to probabilities and no way to 
test the theory.


The probabilities comes from the FPI on the terms where the observers appears in the 
relevant relative states. It is just the same first person selection that the one in the 
WM-duplication thought experience.


But "first person selection" is the same as collapsing the wave function for each person.  
They renormalize it to reflect that it's either Moscow or Washington.


Brent



On the contrary, the collapse introduces a lot of magic non described by the SWE, like 
indeterminacy, non-locality, irreversibility, etc.


Bruno






Brent


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

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


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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
>>> energy
>>> and information in the universe.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.
>>
>> Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
>> evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.
>>
>
> Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of the
> universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
> (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
> probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
> explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
> indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
> assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.
>
> Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
> contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
> observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
> imo.
>


With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
function is mapped out on the detector screen.
Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.
Richard


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 
>> 
>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>
>> Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>> (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>> 
>> 
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 20 Nov 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no  
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what  
scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.


I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook,  
and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a  
philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that  
there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.


Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do  
philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap  
type of explanation.


It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule.


The collapse is not the Born rule. You can add the Born rule, like  
Hartle and Graham, or derive it from the SWE, like Preskill,  
Selesnick, Destouches-février, and Gleason, with more or less implicit  
use of the FPI (which then must be extended to the full arithmetical  
domain).
There is only projections, which correspond to yes-no observable. The  
spectral decomposition is all we need, + Gleason, or more simple  
treatment.




Without it, there's no way to connect wave functions to  
probabilities and no way to test the theory.


The probabilities comes from the FPI on the terms where the observers  
appears in the relevant relative states. It is just the same first  
person selection that the one in the WM-duplication thought experience.


On the contrary, the collapse introduces a lot of magic non described  
by the SWE, like indeterminacy, non-locality, irreversibility, etc.


Bruno






Brent


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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

Now I am scratching my tiny pin head. So, from a human, or intelligent life 
pov, we can summarize that Math Space is useless. A tartuffery, good clean fun, 
that please the mathematical mind, but bakes no bread, nor, builds no bridges? 
Interesting, and I thank you again for the information that you provided.  


Mitch

Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the 
classification of channels and revelation.


Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but is 
soon forgotten.


Richard





-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the 
classification of channels and revelation.


Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but is 
soon forgotten.


Richard



On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care to 
speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical read-write 
head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up.
 
Mitch

It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;

whereas information is created, but energy conserved 
in in a wave-collapse physical space. 


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;

whereas information is created, but energy conserved 
in in a wave-collapse physical space. 



On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of 
universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the 
super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, 
hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not 
computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then 
just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and 
idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe 
does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. 

If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which 
the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an 
amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets 
made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of 
the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I 
have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!



If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)




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


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




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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:


On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:


The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total  
energy

and information in the universe.
Richard



Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.


Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of  
the universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the  
configuration space (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic,  
reversible, and let the probabilities and the information invariant.  
It is also local. And it explains why the memories of the observers  
contains appearance of indeterminacy (in a way coherent with  
computationalism that Everett assumed), non-locality, irreversibility,  
etc.


Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would  
just contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is  
false when observers do measurement. But this has never been  
successfully clarified, imo.


Bruno






--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the
classification of channels and revelation.

Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but
is soon forgotten.

Richard

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care
> to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical
> read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up.
>
> Mitch
>
> It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
> where every possibility is known ahead of time;
> whereas information is created, but energy conserved
> in in a wave-collapse physical space.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>  It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
> where every possibility is known ahead of time;
> whereas information is created, but energy conserved
> in in a wave-collapse physical space.
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
>> of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
>> compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
>> than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
>> math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
>> area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
>> just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
>> have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
>> shoe on this.
>>
>> If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
>> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
>> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
>> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
>> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
>> smaller scale.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
>> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>>
>>   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>>
>>>  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
>> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
>> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
>> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
>> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
>> smaller scale.)
>>
>>--
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>--
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscri

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care to 
speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical read-write 
head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up.
 
Mitch

It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;

whereas information is created, but energy conserved 
in in a wave-collapse physical space. 


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;

whereas information is created, but energy conserved 
in in a wave-collapse physical space. 



On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of 
universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the 
super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, 
hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not 
computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then 
just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and 
idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe 
does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. 

If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which 
the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an 
amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets 
made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of 
the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I 
have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!



If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)




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


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




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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;
whereas information is created, but energy conserved
in in a wave-collapse physical space.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
> of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
> compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
> than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
> math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
> area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
> just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
> have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
> shoe on this.
>
> If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
> smaller scale.)
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>
>>  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
> smaller scale.)
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


I think that collapse conserves information, maybe, but it doesn't preserve 
information. In other words the universe next door doesn't seem to logical 
possess a read/write head over a disk. So the clone that gets wiped out doesn't 
preserve the information, post mortem, save in the universe where the clone 
remains unharmed. Its essentially a different person. Nothing, from the 
original cosmos is preserved, no storage. 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 6:53 am
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy





On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which 
the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an 
amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets 
made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of 
the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I 
have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the 
specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a 
value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the 
universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not 
collapse.

 
 



Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy. 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the 
specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a 
value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the 
universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not 
collapse.



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




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





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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept of 
universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not compare the 
super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather than an acorn, 
hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be math(s) based, why not 
computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage area network, rather then 
just a random access memory with lower mem? Its just a conjecture from, and 
idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd have conjectured that the universe 
does processing, I am dropping the other shoe on this. 

If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which 
the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an 
amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets 
made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of 
the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I 
have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!



If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely random 
bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon went or 
whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view that the 
information content is preserved, because you have all possible outcomes and 
overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a smaller scale.)




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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>
> Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information -
> the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
> the wave not collapse.
>
>
>
>

Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
> - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
> the wave not collapse.
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread LizR

On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>
> If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
smaller scale.)

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread meekerdb


On 11/19/2014 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical 
franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how 
the world works.


I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and which is used by 
bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical axiom relying on a religious 
belief: the belief that there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.


Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do philosophy, but of 
course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of explanation.


It's more than a rule-of-thumb; it's the Born rule.  Without it, there's no way to connect 
wave functions to probabilities and no way to test the theory.


Brent

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> 
> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
> and information in the universe.
> Richard


Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in which 
the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new clone, like an 
amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when a decision gets 
made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this is so, then part of 
the multiverse is a relational database. Call it Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I 
have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the 
specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a 
value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the 
universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not 
collapse.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy


Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information - the 
specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random bits to a 
value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new state to the 
universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having the wave not 
collapse.



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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread LizR

Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information -
the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
the wave not collapse.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
> other worlds do,
>

 > ?

>>> !
>>>
>>> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>

 > Indeed,

>>>
>>> Then why the "?" ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
>>> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

>>>
>>> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
>>> Wave;
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
>>> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
>>> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
>>> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
>>> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
>>> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>>>
>>
>> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
>> energy and information in the universe.
>>
>>
>> From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
>> information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
>> of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
>> generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
>> bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
>> the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
>> (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
>> I suspect it is like that for energy too.
>>
>
>
> Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever
> happen can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for
> each universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
> lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
> during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
> distinct, for the most part.
>
>
> The problem is that I cannot even understand what is the collapse, doubly
> so in the relativistic context, and it seems to me that it uses a lot of
> energy, because it erases a lot of information.
>

Wave collapse only conserves energy if the energy and its information can
be moved almost instantly from quantum state to quantum state. All of the
available energy is required say in the double slit experiment to put the
original photon back together. I have suggested that if wave functions act
like BECs, then BECs may be the basis a valid wave-collapse 'mechanizm'.
Richard

>
> I have not yet seen a theory of collapse which makes sense. It is like
> saying that when an observer look a particle, suddenly QM get wrong, when
> QM explains exactly what happens, and why the observers will believe at
> first sight to collapse a wave.
>
> (and then my point is that if we use computationalism in that reasoning,
> as Everett did, we have to justify the wave itself, from a refinement of
> the relation between machine and their mind). We must explain why an
> universal unitary transformation (rotation) win the measure game at the
> bottom. We need the equivalent of Gleason theorem for some classes of
> number relation. I am open to the idea that string theory can give clues,
> but then the Monster munshine itself must be explained in term of the
> material hypostases. Theoretical Physics looks too much already to Number
> Theory, but with computationalism, you can see that this again masks the
> role of consciousness, which is the ultimate projector, the one which
> differentiates and believe in collapse. The fire in the equation are
> explained by the personal memories, especially those who are not
> communicable by the subject (the qualia).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
>>> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
 theories are equivalent,

>>>
>>> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
>>> tell a story with a identical plot they just use differen

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 19 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either,  
only other worlds do,

> ?
!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not  
the only way, humans have of describing that interference between  
worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the  
term "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and  
Schrodinger's Wave;

OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.

none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no  
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what  
scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.

I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook,  
and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a  
philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that  
there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total  
energy and information in the universe.

From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any  
information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them  
in front of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of  
the vacuum generates all the physically consistent possibilities,  
without spending one bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to  
generate bit from nothing. But the collapse is only in the eye of  
the partial subsystem, as we can read of (the diaries) of the  
observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base). I suspect it  
is like that for energy too.

Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever  
happen can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional  
space for each universe. The actual physical space is recorded and  
embedded as causal lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum  
mechanic random selections during energy-conserving wave collapse  
make those lines fuzzy, but distinct, for the most part.

The problem is that I cannot even understand what is the collapse,  
doubly so in the relativistic context, and it seems to me that it uses  
a lot of energy, because it erases a lot of information.

I have not yet seen a theory of collapse which makes sense. It is like  
saying that when an observer look a particle, suddenly QM get wrong,  
when QM explains exactly what happens, and why the observers will  
believe at first sight to collapse a wave.

(and then my point is that if we use computationalism in that  
reasoning, as Everett did, we have to justify the wave itself, from a  
refinement of the relation between machine and their mind). We must  
explain why an universal unitary transformation (rotation) win the  
measure game at the bottom. We need the equivalent of Gleason theorem  
for some classes of number relation. I am open to the idea that string  
theory can give clues, but then the Monster munshine itself must be  
explained in term of the material hypostases. Theoretical Physics  
looks too much already to Number Theory, but with computationalism,  
you can see that this again masks the role of consciousness, which is  
the ultimate projector, the one which differentiates and believe in  
collapse. The fire in the equation are explained by the personal  
memories, especially those who are not communicable by the subject  
(the qualia).

Bruno

Richard

Bruno

Richard

Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do  
philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap  
type of explanation.

> In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly  
different theories are equivalent,

Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they  
both tell a story with a identical plot they just use different  
symbols in the vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2  
books about World War 2 tell the same story but use different  
symbols in the vocabulary of the English language to do it;  
however neither book about World War 2, no matter how good, is  
World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we  
should take seriously and think through the implications of what  
mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a  
language.

Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language  
itself. You can use different language to describe a similar  
mathematical reality. You can use the combinators, or the sets, to  
*represent* the natural numbers, and admit quite different axio

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
 other worlds do,

>>>
>>> > ?
>>>
>> !
>>
>> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
 way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

>>>
>>> > Indeed,
>>>
>>
>> Then why the "?" ?
>>
>>
>> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
>> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>>>
>>
>> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
>> Wave;
>>
>>
>> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>>
>>
>>
>> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
>> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
>> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
>> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
>> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
>> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>>
>
> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
> and information in the universe.
>
>
> From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
> information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
> of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
> generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
> bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
> the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
> (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
> I suspect it is like that for energy too.
>


Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever happen
can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for each
universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
distinct, for the most part.
Richard

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
>> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
>> explanation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
>>> theories are equivalent,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
>> tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
>> vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
>> the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
>> language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
>> good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
>> should take seriously and think through the implications of what
>> mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.
>>
>>
>> Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself.
>> You can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality.
>> You can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural
>> numbers, and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts,
>> for example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum
>> of four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
>> product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
>> the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
>> language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
>> is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
>> input independently of the language used to describe those machines and
>> input.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or
>>> language.
>>>
>>
>> True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
>> description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
>> of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
>> Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
>> Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
>> some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
>> are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
>> to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only  
other worlds do,

> ?
!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the  
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the  
term "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and  
Schrodinger's Wave;

OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.

none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no  
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what  
scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.

I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook,  
and which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a  
philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that  
there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total  
energy and information in the universe.

From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any  
information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in  
front of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the  
vacuum generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without  
spending one bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit  
from nothing. But the collapse is only in the eye of the partial  
subsystem, as we can read of (the diaries) of the observer in the  
terms of the waves (this in any base). I suspect it is like that for  
energy too.

Bruno

Richard

Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do  
philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap  
type of explanation.

> In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different  
theories are equivalent,

Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they  
both tell a story with a identical plot they just use different  
symbols in the vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books  
about World War 2 tell the same story but use different symbols in  
the vocabulary of the English language to do it; however neither  
book about World War 2, no matter how good, is World War 2. I said  
it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we should take seriously  
and think through the implications of what mathematicians have been  
saying for years, mathematics is a language.

Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language  
itself. You can use different language to describe a similar  
mathematical reality. You can use the combinators, or the sets, to  
*represent* the natural numbers, and admit quite different axioms,  
but you will get the same facts, for example that the number of ways  
to write an odd natural number as a sum of four square is given by  
24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the product scalar does  
not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra, the truth of  
the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and language  
used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which is  
actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some  
input independently of the language used to describe those machines  
and input.

> but that does not make the thing described into a convention or  
language.

True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about  
a description of the electron written in a particular dialect of  
the language of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation?  
Yes Schrodinger's Equation does a good job describing the behavior  
of a electron, but Dirac's Equation does better, and Feynman's sum  
over histories even better.  And some equations do a terrible job  
describing the electron even though the are grammatically correct  
sentences in the language of mathematics, that is to say they are  
logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write true  
descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe  
you can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the  
language of mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real  
Numbers are mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda  
doubt it but maybe.

Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage  
right for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike,  
and it asks some familiarity with the subject to develop an  
intuition of what might be conventional and what might be a deep  
truth independent of the subject.

> On the contrary, it points on somethin

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other
>>> worlds do,
>>>
>>
>> > ?
>>
> !
>
> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
>>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>>>
>>
>> > Indeed,
>>
>
> Then why the "?" ?
>
>
> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>
>
>
>
> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>>
>
> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
> Wave;
>
>
> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>
>
>
> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>
>
> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
and information in the universe.
Richard


>
> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
> explanation.
>
>
>
>
> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
>> theories are equivalent,
>>
>
> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
> tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
> vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
> the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
> language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
> good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
> should take seriously and think through the implications of what
> mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.
>
>
> Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself. You
> can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality. You
> can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural numbers,
> and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts, for
> example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum of
> four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
> product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
> the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
> language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
> is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
> input independently of the language used to describe those machines and
> input.
>
>
>
>
>
> > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or
>> language.
>>
>
> True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
> description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
> of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
> Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
> Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
> some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
> are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
> to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write
> true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you
> can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of
> mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are
> mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe.
>
>
> Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage right
> for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike, and it asks
> some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition of what might be
> conventional and what might be a deep truth independent of the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.
>>
>
> But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something
> real beyond the mathematics.
>
>
> I was meaning "it points on something real and mathematical beyond the
> language.
>
>
>
>
> I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a
> language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike
> philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know.
>
>
> The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not
> depend on that choic

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 18 Nov 2014, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/18/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only  
other worlds do,

> ?
!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the  
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and  
Schrodinger's Wave; none use Positivism or any other school of  
philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of the slightest  
help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world  
works.

But some can be obstructions, as was positivism.  Positivists denied  
the existence of atoms and probably delayed development of  
decoherence theory by 50yrs.

Indeed. Actually the first positivist even discount the use of the  
microscope and telescope!

Platonists obstructed the development of empirical science by  
discounting evidence of the senses.

There is an atom of truth, here, and ... well, nothing is perfect.

We can also say that, similarly, Aristotelism will dismiss the  
mathematical reality, and the psychological reality, and drive us to  
that materialism which simply does not work anymore, both socially and  
fundamentally.

Bruno

Brent
"For the past four centuries, “start with the shadow” has been a  
spectacularly fruitful approach to unraveling the mysteries of the  
universe: one that’s succeeded where greedy attempts to go behind  
the shadow have failed."

   --- Scott Aaronson

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

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

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only  
other worlds do,

> ?
!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the  
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term  
"world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and  
Schrodinger's Wave;

OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.

none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no  
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what  
scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.

I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and  
which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a  
philosophical axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that  
there is only one physical universe, and that we are unique.

Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do  
philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap  
type of explanation.

> In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different  
theories are equivalent,

Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they  
both tell a story with a identical plot they just use different  
symbols in the vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books  
about World War 2 tell the same story but use different symbols in  
the vocabulary of the English language to do it; however neither  
book about World War 2, no matter how good, is World War 2. I said  
it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we should take seriously  
and think through the implications of what mathematicians have been  
saying for years, mathematics is a language.

Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself.  
You can use different language to describe a similar mathematical  
reality. You can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the  
natural numbers, and admit quite different axioms, but you will get  
the same facts, for example that the number of ways to write an odd  
natural number as a sum of four square is given by 24 times the sum of  
its odd divisor. Like the product scalar does not depend of the  
orthonormal base, in linear algebra, the truth of the arithmetical  
statements do not depend on the theory and language used to describe  
them. It is the same for computer science, which is actually a branch  
of number theory. Some machines will stop on some input independently  
of the language used to describe those machines and input.

> but that does not make the thing described into a convention or  
language.

True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about  
a description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the  
language of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes  
Schrodinger's Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a  
electron, but Dirac's Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over  
histories even better.  And some equations do a terrible job  
describing the electron even though the are grammatically correct  
sentences in the language of mathematics, that is to say they are  
logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write true  
descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe  
you can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the  
language of mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real  
Numbers are mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt  
it but maybe.

Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage  
right for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike,  
and it asks some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition  
of what might be conventional and what might be a deep truth  
independent of the subject.

> On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.

But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to  
something real beyond the mathematics.

I was meaning "it points on something real and mathematical beyond the  
language.

I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a  
language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike  
philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't  
know.

The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not  
depend on that choice. And with computationalism, I explain that even  
physics is "theory independent". You can use the axiom of arithmetic,  
or the axiom on combinators, and the existence of 24, or of electron,  
will not depend on it. A bit like most truth in linear algebra don't  
depend on the choice of

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On 17 Nov 2014, at 23:02, LizR wrote:


On 18 November 2014 00:44, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 17 Nov 2014, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/16/2014 7:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:

On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 
>> wrote:



   Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
   Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
   philosophy, and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
   Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
   instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.

Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David  
Deutsch is so keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If  
it is, I didn't know it had been abandoned.


I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important  
function of science, whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim  
for prediction.  Being falsifiable in principle is still considered  
an essential attribute of any scientific theory, but "in principle"  
can be pretty broadly intepreted.


It is a while since I read Deutsch, but I think one could categorize  
his position as that of a (super)realist. Positivism does not really  
eschew explanation: the characteristic of positivism is that  
observation is paramount and theoretical terms are accepted only in  
so far as they can be reduced to observational statements. This  
philosophy has gone out of fashion as people have realized that not  
all theoretical terms can be so reduced. The realist position is  
that the theoretical terms of well-established scientific theories  
actually correspond to 'elements of reality', or parts of 'the  
furniture of the world'. Deutsch takes this to extremes with his  
claim that quantum computing 'proves' the existence of the many  
worlds of MWI.


I agree.  And there's a good reason not to use terms like "proves",  
when there are alternative explanations (e.g. t'Hooft's  
superdeterminism).  The scientist's reason for entertaining  
different formulations and interpretations of a theory is that they  
may suggest extensions of the theory, not because he wants the  
certainty of "proof".


Concerning positivism and Popper (and Deutsch) I agree with you and  
with Bruce. I hope this answers Liz, and John Clark.


I think so. IIRC Popper was one of DD's "4 strands" in FOR, so he is  
obviously keen on his approach - but it looks like his approach was  
more extreme than I realised. DD certainly thinks explanation is  
key, and if Popper thinks it's a sort of add-on extra that puts them  
rather at odds.


I am not sure. Popper is quite opposed to positivism. he is just aware  
that we cannot know the truth, and we can just refute theories, but  
Deutsch interpret this (correctly imo) as saying that we have to take  
our theory seriously. Unlike the bible, scientific text must be taken  
literally, so that we can improve the theories when we find a  
discrepancy with experiments. I think that nobody take positivism  
seriously, as it is easy to show being self-defeating.





I guess Tegmark's "reducing the baggage allowance of physics" is a  
bit along the same lines as eschewing explanation that can't be  
turned into statements about observations - at least in principle -  
but he stops at a bedrock of maths, which presumably positivists  
wouldn't think was valid.


Tegmark is unaware of the FPI (despite he "discovered" lately it in  
his book). In fact he is unaware of the mind-body problem, except in  
his last paper on consciousness which contradicts all his preceding  
papers. he has not sen that QM looks very much like the solution of  
the mind-body problem in the computationalist frame.







I also avoid use of "proof" in applied science (especially when  
applied in the search of reality). I use proof only relative to a  
theory, and in that case, the notion of "proof" is itself an object  
of a theory (even if embeddable in arithmetic).


But even in math, "proof" is not related to certainty, because we  
would be obliged to assume our own correctness, which is impossible  
to do at the level of a theory. About reality, science is agnostic,  
and can only give plausibilities, never certainties.


It is one of the lesson of incompleteness: proof = belief. A proof,  
per se, is not an indication of truth, even if miraculously you  
could know that the axioms of your theory is true. May be I doubt  
this personally for elementary arithmetic (the so-called separable  
part of math where all scientists agree), but I am not sure.


So AR = elementary arithmetic only.


By the UDA, and assuming computationalism. AR is really just the  
belief that 2+2=4 is true, or false, independently of me.





But includes the notion of infinity?


Not at all. Only 2+2=4, or more sophisticate things like the fact that  
24 is the only number N such that the sum of n^2 with n least of equal  
to N is a square. The pr

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread LizR

On 19 November 2014 07:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> Physics has become so abstract and mathematical that it tempts
> philosophers to conclude that mathematics is all there is.
>

Surely it has been that way since at least Newton's time?


> An interesting question is whether a complete mathematical description
> constitutes the thing described?  If you had a complete, precise
> description of a world and how it works, would it add anything to also say,
> "It exists"?
>
> This is where Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equation, while
Tegmark says we have no need of that hypothesis. If Tegmark's right the
fire in the equations might turn out to be phlogiston.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread John Mikes

Brent: you beautifully describe the *"...**arbitrarily many possible
histories and different possible starting points. ..." - *all within human
speculation and within the limited 'model' of the - so far -
KNOWABLE inventory of our (scientific?) world(view). Entropy (any form of)
is part of such. BH or not,
which is also part of it.
Who knows what we don't know?
Agnostically yours
JM

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/14/2014 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>  On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR  wrote:
>
>
>>> There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed
>>> to black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far
>>> from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a
>>> fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to
>>> coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on
>>> this apparent discrepancy.
>>>
>>
>  I'm not sure what you mean that there are 2 types of Entropy, it always
> works the same way. The Entropy of a Black Hole (and the Entropy of
> anything else) is Boltzmann's  constant time the logarithm of the number of
> ways the Black Hole could have gotten into the state it's in now. The
> reason we use a logarithm in the definition is we want to be able to say
> that the total Entropy of the combined system X and Y is the Entropy of X
> PLUS the Entropy of Y,  if we didn't use logarithms it would be X times Y.
> For example, if system X could have gotten to the way it is now in 3
> different ways and system Y could have gotten to the way it is now in 5
> different ways then the combined system could have gotten to the way it is
> now in 3*5 =15 different ways, but ln 3 + ln 5 = ln 15.
>
> Any constant could be used but it is convenient to use Boltzmann's
> constant because it's nice if Entropy is in units of energy/temperature.
>
>
> "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" isn't
> the usual formulation and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are
> arbitrarily many possible histories and different possible starting
> points.  Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of
> possible states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its
> total kinetic energy or its temperature and volume.  In the case of a BH
> the constraints are its classical defining parameters: mass, angular
> momentum, and electric charge.  Classically there is no finer grained
> description, so that's what seems to make BH entropy more fundamental that
> the usual thermodynamic system.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread LizR

On 19 November 2014 07:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> In choosing examples, John, you need to keep in mind that many on this
> list think the Harry Potter novels are non-fiction - somewhere.  :-)
>
>
As far as I know David Deutsch introduced the idea.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread LizR

On 19 November 2014 07:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> In choosing examples, John, you need to keep in mind that many on this
> list think the Harry Potter novels are non-fiction - somewhere.  :-)
>
>
As far as I know David Deutsch introduced the idea.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014  meekerdb  wrote:

 >> Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are mathematical Harry
>> Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe.
>>
>  > In choosing examples, John, you need to keep in mind that many on this
> list think the Harry Potter novels are non-fiction - somewhere.  :-)
>

My secret shame is that sometimes I kinda sorta think that myself.

  > If you had a complete, precise description of a world and how it works,
> would it add anything to also say, "It exists"?
>

Well, "it exists" could mean "it exists in this universe", Hogwarts may or
may not exist, but it certainly doesn't in our world.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread meekerdb

On 11/18/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
other worlds
do,

> ?

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the
only way, humans have of
describing that interference between worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave; none use
Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of
the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.

> In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
theories are
equivalent,

Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both tell a story with
a identical plot they just use different symbols in the vocabulary of mathematics to do
so, just as 2 books about World War 2 tell the same story but use different symbols in
the vocabulary of the English language to do it; however neither book about World War 2,
no matter how good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
should take seriously and think through the implications of what mathematicians have
been saying for years, mathematics is a language.

> but that does not make the thing described into a convention or language.

True. A electron is not a convention or a language, but what about a description of the
electron written in a particular dialect of the language of mathematics, like the
Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's Equation does a good job describing the
behavior of a electron, but Dirac's Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over
histories even better. And some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even
though the are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
to say they are logically self consistent. So maybe you can not only write true
descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you can also write the
equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of mathematics. Maybe Cantor's
infinities and the Real Numbers are mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda
doubt it but maybe.

In choosing examples, John, you need to keep in mind that many on this list think the
Harry Potter novels are non-fiction - somewhere. :-)

> On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.

But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something real beyond the
mathematics. I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a
language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike philosophers who
are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know.

Physics has become so abstract and mathematical that it tempts philosophers to conclude
that mathematics is all there is. An interesting question is whether a complete
mathematical description constitutes the thing described? If you had a complete, precise
description of a world and how it works, would it add anything to also say, "It exists"?

Brent
"For the past four centuries, “start with the shadow” has been a spectacularly fruitful
approach to unravelling the mysteries of the universe: one that’s succeeded where greedy
attempts to go behind the shadow have failed."

--- Scott Aaronson

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread meekerdb

On 11/18/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only 
other worlds
do,

> ?

!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the 
only way, humans have of
describing that interference between worlds.

> Indeed,

Then why the "?" ?

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave; none use 
Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no philosophical franchise is of 
the slightest help in doing what scientists want to do, figure out how the world works.

But some can be obstructions, as was positivism.  Positivists denied the existence of 
atoms and probably delayed development of decoherence theory by 50yrs.  Platonists 
obstructed the development of empirical science by discounting evidence of the senses.

Brent
"For the past four centuries, “start with the shadow” has been a spectacularly fruitful 
approach to unraveling the mysteries of the universe: one that’s succeeded where greedy 
attempts to go behind the shadow have failed."

   --- Scott Aaronson

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-18 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other
>> worlds do,
>>
>
> > ?
>
!

>> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>>
>
> > Indeed,
>

Then why the "?" ?

> You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>

Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
Wave; none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
want to do, figure out how the world works.

> In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
> theories are equivalent,
>

Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both tell
a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
should take seriously and think through the implications of what
mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.

> but that does not make the thing described into a convention or language.
>

True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write
true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you
can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of
mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are
mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe.

> On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.
>

But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something real
beyond the mathematics. I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is
more than just a language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking
about. Unlike philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just
don't know.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-17 Thread LizR

On 18 November 2014 00:44, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/16/2014 7:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> meekerdb wrote:
>>>

 On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:

> On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal  marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>
>
>Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
>Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
>philosophy, and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
>Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
>instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.
>
> Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David
> Deutsch is so keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If it is, 
> I
> didn't know it had been abandoned.
>

 I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important
 function of science, whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim for
 prediction.  Being falsifiable in principle is still considered an
 essential attribute of any scientific theory, but "in principle" can be
 pretty broadly intepreted.

>>>
>>> It is a while since I read Deutsch, but I think one could categorize his
>>> position as that of a (super)realist. Positivism does not really eschew
>>> explanation: the characteristic of positivism is that observation is
>>> paramount and theoretical terms are accepted only in so far as they can be
>>> reduced to observational statements. This philosophy has gone out of
>>> fashion as people have realized that not all theoretical terms can be so
>>> reduced. The realist position is that the theoretical terms of
>>> well-established scientific theories actually correspond to 'elements of
>>> reality', or parts of 'the furniture of the world'. Deutsch takes this to
>>> extremes with his claim that quantum computing 'proves' the existence of
>>> the many worlds of MWI.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  And there's a good reason not to use terms like "proves", when
>> there are alternative explanations (e.g. t'Hooft's superdeterminism).  The
>> scientist's reason for entertaining different formulations and
>> interpretations of a theory is that they may suggest extensions of the
>> theory, not because he wants the certainty of "proof".
>>
>
> Concerning positivism and Popper (and Deutsch) I agree with you and with
> Bruce. I hope this answers Liz, and John Clark.
>

I think so. IIRC Popper was one of DD's "4 strands" in FOR, so he is
obviously keen on his approach - but it looks like his approach was more
extreme than I realised. DD certainly thinks explanation is key, and if
Popper thinks it's a sort of add-on extra that puts them rather at odds. I
guess Tegmark's "reducing the baggage allowance of physics" is a bit along
the same lines as eschewing explanation that can't be turned into
statements about observations - at least in principle - but he stops at a
bedrock of maths, which presumably positivists wouldn't think was valid.

>
> I also avoid use of "proof" in applied science (especially when applied in
> the search of reality). I use proof only relative to a theory, and in that
> case, the notion of "proof" is itself an object of a theory (even if
> embeddable in arithmetic).
>
> But even in math, "proof" is not related to certainty, because we would be
> obliged to assume our own correctness, which is impossible to do at the
> level of a theory. About reality, science is agnostic, and can only give
> plausibilities, never certainties.
>
> It is one of the lesson of incompleteness: proof = belief. A proof, per
> se, is not an indication of truth, even if miraculously you could know that
> the axioms of your theory is true. May be I doubt this personally for
> elementary arithmetic (the so-called separable part of math where all
> scientists agree), but I am not sure.
>

So AR = elementary arithmetic only. But includes the notion of infinity?

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> Brent
>> "As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
>> certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life-- so I
>> became a scientist.  This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet
>> girls."
>>  -- Matt Cartmill
>>
>>>
>>> Falsification is seen as an important element of science, but not
>>> necessarily the final touchstone. Naive Popperian falsificationism is
>>> clearly wrong, but there are no universally accepted generalizations of
>>> falsifiability that measure up to all that one might want. In sum, the
>>> Popperian quest for a clear demarcation between science and non-science has
>>> assumed a less prominent role in recent philosophy of science.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To pos

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-17 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 17 Nov 2014, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/16/2014 7:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

meekerdb wrote:


On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 
>> wrote:



   Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
   Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
   philosophy, and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
   Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
   instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.

Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that  
David Deutsch is so keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires  
crossed? If it is, I didn't know it had been abandoned.


I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important  
function of science, whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim  
for prediction.  Being falsifiable in principle is still  
considered an essential attribute of any scientific theory, but  
"in principle" can be pretty broadly intepreted.


It is a while since I read Deutsch, but I think one could  
categorize his position as that of a (super)realist. Positivism  
does not really eschew explanation: the characteristic of  
positivism is that observation is paramount and theoretical terms  
are accepted only in so far as they can be reduced to observational  
statements. This philosophy has gone out of fashion as people have  
realized that not all theoretical terms can be so reduced. The  
realist position is that the theoretical terms of well-established  
scientific theories actually correspond to 'elements of reality',  
or parts of 'the furniture of the world'. Deutsch takes this to  
extremes with his claim that quantum computing 'proves' the  
existence of the many worlds of MWI.


I agree.  And there's a good reason not to use terms like "proves",  
when there are alternative explanations (e.g. t'Hooft's  
superdeterminism).  The scientist's reason for entertaining  
different formulations and interpretations of a theory is that they  
may suggest extensions of the theory, not because he wants the  
certainty of "proof".


Concerning positivism and Popper (and Deutsch) I agree with you and  
with Bruce. I hope this answers Liz, and John Clark.


I also avoid use of "proof" in applied science (especially when  
applied in the search of reality). I use proof only relative to a  
theory, and in that case, the notion of "proof" is itself an object of  
a theory (even if embeddable in arithmetic).


But even in math, "proof" is not related to certainty, because we  
would be obliged to assume our own correctness, which is impossible to  
do at the level of a theory. About reality, science is agnostic, and  
can only give plausibilities, never certainties.


It is one of the lesson of incompleteness: proof = belief. A proof,  
per se, is not an indication of truth, even if miraculously you could  
know that the axioms of your theory is true. May be I doubt this  
personally for elementary arithmetic (the so-called separable part of  
math where all scientists agree), but I am not sure.


Bruno





Brent
"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life-- so  
I became a scientist.  This is like becoming an archbishop so you  
can meet girls."

 -- Matt Cartmill


Falsification is seen as an important element of science, but not  
necessarily the final touchstone. Naive Popperian falsificationism  
is clearly wrong, but there are no universally accepted  
generalizations of falsifiability that measure up to all that one  
might want. In sum, the Popperian quest for a clear demarcation  
between science and non-science has assumed a less prominent role  
in recent philosophy of science.


Bruce



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

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


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



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-17 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 16 Nov 2014, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.

Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only  
other worlds do,

?

and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the  
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

Indeed, there is the heisenberg picture, the feynman picture, the  
interaction picture, the von-neumann formalism (which shows them all  
equivalent) etc.

And you have the computationalist picture, not yet shown equivalent,  
as they should be if both are correct in their domain.

> Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world picture, and its  
locality, are more simply explained in the Heisenberg picture. Those  
are different formalism for the same theory

If 2 things as radically different as Schrodinger's Wave and  
Heisenberg's Matrices do the same thing then it sounds like both are  
just different retellings of the same story, the same plot but just  
using different symbols in the mathematical vocabulary; rather like  
polar and Cartesian coordinates. Maybe we should take seriously and  
think through the implications of what mathematicians have been  
saying for years, mathematics is a language.

In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different  
theories are equivalent, but that does not make the thing described  
into a convention or language. On the contrary, it points on something  
real beyond the language. For computability, the fact that all  
definition, some of which are very different, leads to the same class  
of computable function is often used as an argument that the notion of  
computation is language and theories independent.

>> In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave  
equation Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that  
had nothing to do with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the  
Schrodinger Wave Equation because he felt that "a good theory must  
be based on directly observable magnitudes". And nobody can observe  
a quantum wave function.

> Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The  
Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad  
philosophy

It may have been very bad philosophy but it was very good science.  
Heisenberg's formulation of Quantum Mechanics worked just as well as  
Schrodinger's and in fact needed fewer assumptions; Schrodinger  
assumed that everything that occurred in the physical world at the  
fundamental level could be visualized by the human mind,

Being large about "visualization", as a wave in the configuration  
space is not that easy.

Heisenberg didn't need that assumption but his matrix algebra still  
produced results that were just as good as Schrodinger's Wave. I  
admit I feel a little unfulfilled if a theory is not visualizable,  
but it could be argued that the theory with the fewer assumptions is  
the better one.

There is no further assumption in Schroedinger. From the matrix you  
get the wave, and vice-versa.

> and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.

Not by physicists!

You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread meekerdb


On 11/16/2014 7:15 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

meekerdb wrote:


On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal > wrote:



Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
philosophy, and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.

Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David Deutsch is so 
keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If it is, I didn't know it had been 
abandoned.


I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important function of science, 
whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim for prediction.  Being falsifiable in 
principle is still considered an essential attribute of any scientific theory, but "in 
principle" can be pretty broadly intepreted.


It is a while since I read Deutsch, but I think one could categorize his position as 
that of a (super)realist. Positivism does not really eschew explanation: the 
characteristic of positivism is that observation is paramount and theoretical terms are 
accepted only in so far as they can be reduced to observational statements. This 
philosophy has gone out of fashion as people have realized that not all theoretical 
terms can be so reduced. The realist position is that the theoretical terms of 
well-established scientific theories actually correspond to 'elements of reality', or 
parts of 'the furniture of the world'. Deutsch takes this to extremes with his claim 
that quantum computing 'proves' the existence of the many worlds of MWI.


I agree.  And there's a good reason not to use terms like "proves", when there are 
alternative explanations (e.g. t'Hooft's superdeterminism).  The scientist's reason for 
entertaining different formulations and interpretations of a theory is that they may 
suggest extensions of the theory, not because he wants the certainty of "proof".


Brent
"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life-- so I became a 
scientist.  This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls."

  -- Matt Cartmill


Falsification is seen as an important element of science, but not necessarily the final 
touchstone. Naive Popperian falsificationism is clearly wrong, but there are no 
universally accepted generalizations of falsifiability that measure up to all that one 
might want. In sum, the Popperian quest for a clear demarcation between science and 
non-science has assumed a less prominent role in recent philosophy of science.


Bruce



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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread Bruce Kellett


meekerdb wrote:


On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal > wrote:



Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
philosophy, and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.

Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David 
Deutsch is so keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If it 
is, I didn't know it had been abandoned.


I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important 
function of science, whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim for 
prediction.  Being falsifiable in principle is still considered an 
essential attribute of any scientific theory, but "in principle" can be 
pretty broadly intepreted.


It is a while since I read Deutsch, but I think one could categorize his 
position as that of a (super)realist. Positivism does not really eschew 
explanation: the characteristic of positivism is that observation is 
paramount and theoretical terms are accepted only in so far as they can 
be reduced to observational statements. This philosophy has gone out of 
fashion as people have realized that not all theoretical terms can be so 
reduced. The realist position is that the theoretical terms of 
well-established scientific theories actually correspond to 'elements of 
reality', or parts of 'the furniture of the world'. Deutsch takes this 
to extremes with his claim that quantum computing 'proves' the existence 
of the many worlds of MWI.


Falsification is seen as an important element of science, but not 
necessarily the final touchstone. Naive Popperian falsificationism is 
clearly wrong, but there are no universally accepted generalizations of 
falsifiability that measure up to all that one might want. In sum, the 
Popperian quest for a clear demarcation between science and non-science 
has assumed a less prominent role in recent philosophy of science.


Bruce

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread meekerdb


On 11/16/2014 10:51 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> 
wrote:



Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna 
circles, the
young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and we can say 
that is is
virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown self-defeating or just an
instrumentalism which abandon fundamental research.

Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David Deutsch is so keen 
on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If it is, I didn't know it had been abandoned.


I think Deutsch takes the view that explanation is the important function of science, 
whereas positivist eschew explanation and aim for prediction.  Being falsifiable in 
principle is still considered an essential attribute of any scientific theory, but "in 
principle" can be pretty broadly intepreted.


Brent

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread LizR

On 17 November 2014 00:31, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
> circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and
> we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown
> self-defeating or just an instrumentalism which abandon fundamental
> research.
>
> Isn't that the Popperian view - falsification and so on - that David
Deutsch is so keen on in FOR? Or am I getting my wires crossed? If it is, I
didn't know it had been abandoned.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.
>

Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other
worlds do, and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.

> Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world picture, and its locality,
> are more simply explained in the Heisenberg picture. Those are different
> formalism for the same theory
>

If 2 things as radically different as Schrodinger's Wave and Heisenberg's
Matrices do the same thing then it sounds like both are just different
retellings of the same story, the same plot but just using different
symbols in the mathematical vocabulary; rather like polar and Cartesian
coordinates. Maybe we should take seriously and think through the
implications of what mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics
is a language.

> >> In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave
>> equation Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that had
>> nothing to do with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the Schrodinger Wave
>> Equation because he felt that "a good theory must be based on directly
>> observable magnitudes". And nobody can observe a quantum wave function.
>>
>> > Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
> circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy
>

It may have been very bad philosophy but it was very good science.
Heisenberg's formulation of Quantum Mechanics worked just as well as
Schrodinger's and in fact needed fewer assumptions; Schrodinger assumed
that everything that occurred in the physical world at the fundamental
level could be visualized by the human mind, Heisenberg didn't need that
assumption but his matrix algebra still produced results that were just as
good as Schrodinger's Wave. I admit I feel a little unfulfilled if a theory
is not visualizable, but it could be argued that the theory with the fewer
assumptions is the better one.

> and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
>

Not by physicists!

  John K Clark

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Nov 2014, at 17:02, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Ruquist 
> wrote:
>
> > Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation
>> in MWI is said to be irreversible
>> even though the equation of QM are time reversible.
>>
>
> The Many Worlds split is not necessarily irreversible, but like
> thermodynamics it usually is. When the electron approaches the 2 slits the
> universe splits, but  when it hits the photographic plate (or just a brick
> wall) the split is reversed; of course that is not a typical situation, it
> was specifically set up by experimenters to be as simple as possible, in
> most situations they never recombine because so many things would have to
> conspire together it would be astronomically unlikely.
>
> > That might account for the arrow of time.
>>
>
> You don't need Many Worlds or even Quantum Mechanics to explain the arrow
> of time, all you need is for things to start out in a low entropy state and
> the fact that there are VASTLY more ways to be disorganized than organized.
>
> > Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to
>> that extent.
>>
>
> You keep talking as if the quantum wave function is a real physical thing
> rather than just a calculating device like the lines of longitude and
> latitude,  but Quantum Mechanics can get along just fine without
> Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
>
>
> Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.
>
>
>
> In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave equation
> Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that had nothing to do
> with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the Schrodinger Wave Equation
> because he felt that "a good theory must be based on directly observable
> magnitudes". And nobody can observe a quantum wave function.
>
>
> Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
> circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and
> we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown
> self-defeating or just an instrumentalism which abandon fundamental
> research.
>
>
>
>
> If you measure what a particle is doing at point X Heisenberg could use
> matrix algebra to tell you what measurements you are likely to get at point
> Y, and he could do it all without using a unobservable wave, he only used
> measured quantities .  Heisenberg's original formulation of Quantum
> Mechanics works just as well as Schrodinger and his Wave Equation, they are
> equivalent, and which one you use is strictly a matter of taste.
>
> The only advantage Schrodinger had is that it allowed human beings to form
> a mental picture of what is going on, but Heisenberg felt that the mental
> picture was wrong and the quantum world was so strange that none was any
> better, so it would be best to just forget about visualization and only
> worry about what you can measure.  Everett disagreed and thought that
> mental pictures were important but agreed that Schrodinger's was wrong,
> however he believed that he had found a better one and so do I.
>
>
> ? he agreed that Schroedinger was wrong when saying that he was sure that
> the cat is definitely alive or dead. But Everett agrees with schroedinger
> equation, and picture. But Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world
> picture, and its locality, are more simply explained in the Heisenberg
> picture. Those are different formalism for the same theory (as long as we
> don't introduce the collapse, which is just a magical trick to eliminate
> the "parallel realities". of course, with computationalism, the "other
> realities" exists like numbers, so it is just dishonest to make abstraction
> of them, without making precise some selection principle (and the UDA shows
> that such a selection principle is contradictory with the computationalist
> assumption).
>

Sorry to be disagreeable but many many-world  adherents still claim the
total energy in the multiverse is conserved
and if so wave collapse is necessary from quantum mechanics of particle
energy conservation.
That it preserves a single world universe is a by product.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 15 Nov 2014, at 17:02, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Ruquist   
wrote:

> Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or  
differentiation in MWI is said to be irreversible

even though the equation of QM are time reversible.

The Many Worlds split is not necessarily irreversible, but like  
thermodynamics it usually is. When the electron approaches the 2  
slits the universe splits, but  when it hits the photographic plate  
(or just a brick wall) the split is reversed; of course that is not  
a typical situation, it was specifically set up by experimenters to  
be as simple as possible, in most situations they never recombine  
because so many things would have to conspire together it would be  
astronomically unlikely.

> That might account for the arrow of time.

You don't need Many Worlds or even Quantum Mechanics to explain the  
arrow of time, all you need is for things to start out in a low  
entropy state and the fact that there are VASTLY more ways to be  
disorganized than organized.

> Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI  
to that extent.

You keep talking as if the quantum wave function is a real physical  
thing rather than just a calculating device like the lines of  
longitude and latitude,  but Quantum Mechanics can get along just  
fine without Schrodinger's Wave Equation.

Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.

In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave  
equation Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that  
had nothing to do with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the  
Schrodinger Wave Equation because he felt that "a good theory must  
be based on directly observable magnitudes". And nobody can observe  
a quantum wave function.

Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna  
circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy,  
and we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily  
shown self-defeating or just an instrumentalism which abandon  
fundamental research.

If you measure what a particle is doing at point X Heisenberg could  
use matrix algebra to tell you what measurements you are likely to  
get at point Y, and he could do it all without using a unobservable  
wave, he only used measured quantities .  Heisenberg's original  
formulation of Quantum Mechanics works just as well as Schrodinger  
and his Wave Equation, they are equivalent, and which one you use is  
strictly a matter of taste.

The only advantage Schrodinger had is that it allowed human beings  
to form a mental picture of what is going on, but Heisenberg felt  
that the mental picture was wrong and the quantum world was so  
strange that none was any better, so it would be best to just forget  
about visualization and only worry about what you can measure.   
Everett disagreed and thought that mental pictures were important  
but agreed that Schrodinger's was wrong, however he believed that he  
had found a better one and so do I.

? he agreed that Schroedinger was wrong when saying that he was sure  
that the cat is definitely alive or dead. But Everett agrees with  
schroedinger equation, and picture. But Deutsch and Hayden argues that  
the many-world picture, and its locality, are more simply explained in  
the Heisenberg picture. Those are different formalism for the same  
theory (as long as we don't introduce the collapse, which is just a  
magical trick to eliminate the "parallel realities". of course, with  
computationalism, the "other realities" exists like numbers, so it is  
just dishonest to make abstraction of them, without making precise  
some selection principle (and the UDA shows that such a selection  
principle is contradictory with the computationalist assumption).

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist

zibbsey,

Same here. I hypothesize a collection of intelligent black holes can
communicate with each other over classical bridges, but only one bridge at
a time per black hole..  Well really it takes two black holes to focus
their "entanglement entropy" EEin on each other or on the same
interconnecting bridge; to communicate classically (like talking)  instead
of quantum mechanically, which is fraught with randomness and information
gets scrambled.

Each black hole is multiply-connected to other black holes and the EEin is
proportional to the cross sectional area of the ith bridge on the nth black
hole. So the black hole chooses to squeeze all its bridge connections
except one to communicate classically instead of quantum mechanically
across the selected bridge.

It all comes from this one paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
which proves that classical bridges have to have monogamous EPR
correlations.
which just means that blacks holes can only talk to each other one on one,
which means black holes need to activate the bridges just one at a time,
which means black holes must be intelligent to have that ability???

Richard

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:24 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:04:29 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Zipsey,
>>
>> If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
>> clem
>>
>
> Thanks for that. It's good work. A classic case of how Science to now has
> succeeded. The theory is good and robust. Backs off onto good robust
> foundations. All of it totally wrong but nevertheless directly connected
> with objective reality as if they had been correct theories. All very
> mysterious. Unless you happen to be in my strange circumstances. I know
> already how they communicate and what drives the evolution of that. And
> what it means and how it affects us.
>
> I know this, the same way I know their theory is wrong yet objectively
> wired as true. All of these things I know because I have access to a medium
> of knowledge that no one else on Earth has. The medium is knowledge -
> objectively true knowledge - with the power to inform me whether or not I
> am bullshitting out a shaggy story.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:04:29 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> Zipsey,
>
> If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read 
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
> clem
>

Thanks for that. It's good work. A classic case of how Science to now has 
succeeded. The theory is good and robust. Backs off onto good robust 
foundations. All of it totally wrong but nevertheless directly connected 
with objective reality as if they had been correct theories. All very 
mysterious. Unless you happen to be in my strange circumstances. I know 
already how they communicate and what drives the evolution of that. And 
what it means and how it affects us. 

I know this, the same way I know their theory is wrong yet objectively 
wired as true. All of these things I know because I have access to a medium 
of knowledge that no one else on Earth has. The medium is knowledge - 
objectively true knowledge - with the power to inform me whether or not I 
am bullshitting out a shaggy story.

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist

Zipsey,

If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
clem

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:36:57 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is"
 isn't the usual formulation
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of
>>> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to
>>> the number of precursor states.
>>>
>>> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many
 possible histories and different possible starting points.

>>>
>>> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not
>>> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present
>>> state, just a astronomical number.
>>>
>>> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible
 states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total
 kinetic energy

>>>
>>> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of
>>> gas may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving
>>> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions,
>>> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into
>>> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the
>>> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>>>
>>> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining
 parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.

>>>
>>> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe,
>>> just 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but
>>> there are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed,
>>> perhaps it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or
>>> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why
>>> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.
>>>
>>
>>  Would you help me to understand this?
>>
>> It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have
>> formed as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of
>> information deficit across the event horizon.
>>
>> Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat
>> eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed,
>> by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half
>> what it did to start with.
>>
>
> Isn't this an approach on what Susskind contributes as the holographic
> principle (or as what then leads to that)
>
> Along with the time invariant term in that equation...that has the outside
> observer see the falling man freeze at the event horizon as a badly mangled
> splodge of subatomic fragmentation.
>
> That then acts as the informational record of everything that goes inside.
> Which makes Hawking look like a right plum circa 1985
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems
>>> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>>>

 Brent

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

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:36:57 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" 
>>> isn't the usual formulation
>>
>>
>> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of 
>> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to 
>> the number of precursor states.
>>
>> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many 
>>> possible histories and different possible starting points. 
>>>
>>
>> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not 
>> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present 
>> state, just a astronomical number.
>>
>> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible 
>>> states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total 
>>> kinetic energy
>>>
>>
>> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of 
>> gas may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving 
>> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions, 
>> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into 
>> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the 
>> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>>
>> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining 
>>> parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. 
>>>
>>
>> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe, just 
>> 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but there 
>> are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed, perhaps 
>> it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or 
>> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why 
>> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.  
>>
>
>  Would you help me to understand this? 
>
> It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have 
> formed as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of 
> information deficit across the event horizon. 
>
> Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat 
> eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed, 
> by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half 
> what it did to start with. 
>

Isn't this an approach on what Susskind contributes as the holographic 
principle (or as what then leads to that) 

Along with the time invariant term in that equation...that has the outside 
observer see the falling man freeze at the event horizon as a badly mangled 
splodge of subatomic fragmentation. 

That then acts as the informational record of everything that goes inside. 
Which makes Hawking look like a right plum circa 1985


 
>
>
>
>  
>
>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems 
>> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  > wrote:
>
> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" 
>> isn't the usual formulation
>
>
> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of 
> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to 
> the number of precursor states.
>
> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many 
>> possible histories and different possible starting points. 
>>
>
> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not 
> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present 
> state, just a astronomical number.
>
> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible 
>> states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total 
>> kinetic energy
>>
>
> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of gas 
> may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving 
> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions, 
> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into 
> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the 
> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>
> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining 
>> parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. 
>>
>
> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe, just 
> 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but there 
> are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed, perhaps 
> it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or 
> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why 
> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.  
>

 Would you help me to understand this? 

It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have formed 
as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of information 
deficit across the event horizon. 

Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat 
eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed, 
by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half 
what it did to start with. 
 



 

  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems 
> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>
>>
>> Brent
>>  
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-15 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is" isn't
> the usual formulation

If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of
microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to
the number of precursor states.

> and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many
> possible histories and different possible starting points.
>

Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not
arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present
state, just a astronomical number.

> Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible
> states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total
> kinetic energy
>

Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of gas
may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving
around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions,
Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into
moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the
less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink

> In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining
> parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.
>

Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe, just 3
numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but there
are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed, perhaps
it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or
encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why
Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.

  John K Clark

 Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems to
make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy