Re: Physics and Tautology.
Physics and Tautology. =. 1 Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ? These masses came from surrounding space. 2 Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ? These masses came from ‘big bang’. ===. Why is he poor ? Because he is stupid. Why is he stupid? Because he is poor. ===. The ‘big bang’ doesn’t give answer to the question: where did the mass come from ? To understand this we need go out from ‘ big bang’ . But ‘ the big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Prior to that moment there was nothing;’ So, . . where do we go out ? ==. Israel Socratus. … So, . . where do we go out ? ==. If we go out of mass then it can be only one possibility - - we will enter into an empty space. ==. ‘ A world without masses, without electrons, without an electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.’ / Book ‘Albert Einstein’ The page 116 . by Leopold Infeld. / ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physics and Tautology.
If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kRunZgoGxfoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physics and Tautology.
Hi Ronald, I have a severe problem with this entire thread! What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe? Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/summands#English that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x! It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as Principles of Physical Cosmology by Phillip James Edwin Peebles http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Physical_Cosmology.html?id=AmlEt6TJ6jAC, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies. On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote: If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physics and Tautology.
On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Ronald, I have a severe problem with this entire thread! What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe? They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it follows that they were zero at the origin, which suggests the universe came from nothing. Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/summands#English that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x! Sure we can. That's the advantage of mathematics, x-x=0 regardless of what number is x. It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as Principles of Physical Cosmology by Phillip James Edwin Peebles http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Physical_Cosmology.html?id=AmlEt6TJ6jAC, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies. There's no logical fallacy in noting that a universe that came from nothing should have zero net energy and other conserved quantities. Peebles book is pretty old, so it's not going to include knowledge of the CMB from WMAP and COBE or the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating or the holographic principle. I'd recommend Vic Stenger's The Comprehensible Cosmos, Sean Carroll's From Eternity to Here, or Alex Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One. Brent On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote: If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physics and Tautology.
On 8/2/2012 5:06 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2012 12:18 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Ronald, I have a severe problem with this entire thread! What exactly determines the particular properties, such as charge, angular momentum, mass, etc., of this universe? They are conserved quantities, so if they are zero now it follows that they were zero at the origin, which suggests the universe came from nothing. Hi Brent, I think that that is the consensus opinion of the members of this list. Why are we assuming that the choice of what went into the zero net sum is a prior definite and constrained. The question of the universe here is not so simple that it can be represented the same way that we can note that 1 - 1 = 0. Even in arithmetic model, we have to offer within our explanations what where the summands http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/summands#English that let to the sum of net zero. For example, 5 - 5 = 0, 4 - 4 = 0, etc. x - x = 0. What is x? We cannot assume without discussion what is x! Sure we can. That's the advantage of mathematics, x-x=0 regardless of what number is x. But do you see my point? Anything and everything can be generated from zero in this way. The hard question is how is it that we only observe a tiny finite fragment of this infinity? It seems to me that this entire thread is infected with post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and we should reconsider exactly what is being contemplated. I suggest reading of a good book on Cosmology, such as Principles of Physical Cosmology by Phillip James Edwin Peebles http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_Physical_Cosmology.html?id=AmlEt6TJ6jAC, where one finds a very nice discussion of these issues of without the nonsense of logical fallacies. There's no logical fallacy in noting that a universe that came from nothing should have zero net energy and other conserved quantities. The fallacy is to assume that what is the case must always be the case. Peebles book is pretty old, so it's not going to include knowledge of the CMB from WMAP and COBE or the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating or the holographic principle. I'd recommend Vic Stenger's The Comprehensible Cosmos, Sean Carroll's From Eternity to Here, or Alex Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One. Nah. I like Pebbles because it is hard nose empiricism and openly so. No speculations unless labeled as such. Brent On 8/2/2012 2:49 PM, ronaldheld wrote: If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Physics and Tautology.
Physics and Tautology. =. 1 Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ? These masses came from surrounding space. 2 Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ? These masses came from ‘big bang’. ===. Why he is poor ? Because he is stupid. Why he is stupid? Because he is poor. ===. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physics and Tautology.
Isn't every (alleged) proof of something's truth just a list of things (steps) implied by the previous statement until one arrives at the final statement...a tautology? Briefly: isn't every proof just a (possibly lengthy) list of tautologies? Therefore, using that notion, calling out alleged proofs of masses coming from (or not coming from) the big bang and what not specifically is, actually, redundant. On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Physics and Tautology. =. 1 Where did the masses for ‘ big bang ‘ come from ? These masses came from surrounding space. 2 Where did these masses from surrounding space come from ? These masses came from ‘big bang’. ===. Why he is poor ? Because he is stupid. Why he is stupid? Because he is poor. ===. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: tautology
In a message dated 12/05/1999 8:57:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is an obvious normalisation problem with the usual model of branching histories in MWI (I see from your signature you at least accept that!). Since the total number of histories (belonging to say a particular observer) is some exponentially growing function of time, and extends indefinitely into the future, the total measure of an observer is unnormalisable, without some renormalisation applied at each timestep (which seems rather arbitrary - unless you've got some better ideas). Your measure argument, which is a variation of the Leslie-Carter Doomsday argument, implicitly relies on a normalised measure distribution of observer moments. I seem to remember this normalisation problem was discussed earlier this year, but I'm not sure (without rereading large tracts of the archives) Now, with RSSA, this normalisation problem is not an issue, as only the relative measures between successive time steps is important, not the overall measure. I agree that there is a problem with the conventional concept of the MWI which support an asymmetrical view of time. According to this concept, branching generates an ever increasing number of worlds and identities. ID splitting is allowed but ID merging is not. Yet I find much more satisfying to believe in a time symmetrical world in which spitting and merging occur with equal frequency. Just as an aside I would like to go back to Bruno's amoeba analogy in which he illustrated the feeling one has in a splitting Many Worlds with the question: how does it feel to be an amoeba after it splits? Using the same analogy to illustrate merging worlds, I could ask how does it feel to be an egg after it's fertilized? (reminds me of one of Woody Allen's movies. :-)) George Levy
Re: tautology
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] [BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution] ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in to make it obvious who I'm responding to. Since your software is bad, you should add it manually. It is obvious that p(Y1X) = p(Y1Z), because in all instances in It is not obvious, for the same reason that p(Y1X) = p(Y2X) is not obvious. If QTI is true, then it is clearly not true. Don't assume what you're trying to prove. Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. I am discussing the ASSA, not trying to prove it but to show that it is self consistent. You are right in the sense that I left something out. I am assuming a reasonable measure distribution based on the physical situation. For example, the measure could be proprtional to the number of implementations of a computation, as I like to assume. It is also possible to assume an unreasonable measure distribution, like the RSSA. This of course would require new, strange and complicated laws of psycho-physics. So what I am really doing is showing that (ASSA + reasonable measure (RM)) is self consistent. However, the way we have been using the term ASSA, RM has almost always been assumed. In any case it is always true that some way of calculating the measure distribution is needed. Your claim was that the RSSA is needed. My example shows that RM does the job. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: The measure of Jack Mallah is irrelevant to this situation. The probability of Jack Mallah seeing Joe Schmoe with a large age is proportional to Joe Schmoe's measure - because - Joe Schmoe is independent of Jack Mallah. However, Jack Mallah is clearly not independent of Jack Mallah, and predictions of the probability of Jack Mallah seeing a Jack Mallah with large age cannot be made with the existing assumptions of ASSA. The claim is that RSSA has the additional assumptions required. That's total BS. I'll review, although I've said it so many times, how effective probabilities work in the ASSA. You can take this as a definition of ASSA, so you can NOT deny that this is how things would work if the ASSA is true. The only thing you could try, is to claim that the ASSA is false. The effective probability of an observation with characteristic 'X' is (measure of observations with 'X') / (total measure). The conditional effective probability that an observation has characteristic Y, given that it has characteristic X, is p(Y|X) = (measure of observations with X and with Y) / (measure with X). OK, these definitions are true in general. Let's apply them to the situation in question. 'X' = being Jack Mallah and seeing an age for Joe Shmoe and for Jack Mallah, and seeing that Joe also sees both ages and sees that Jack sees both ages. Suppose that objectively (e.g. to a 3rd party) Jack and Joe have their ages drawn from the same type of distribution. (i.e. they are the same species). Case 1: 'Y1' = the age seen for Joe is large. Case 2: 'Y2' = the age seen for Jack is large. Clearly P(Y1|X) = P(Y2|X). - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
Chris Maloney wrote: This harkens back to a thread I started some time ago about our universe being the one, or among the ones, that admit the most SASs. Clearly the number of observer-moments among the human race is vast, if you assume the MWI. Most people replied that they thought it was of the order aleph-0 (countable) or C (the continuum). If you assume comp, and that any two implementations of the same Turing machine are identical (which I would) then the number must be aleph-0, right? Not right. There are reasons with comp to quantify on the infinite histories of machines. So with comp the answer should be C. Bruno
Re: tautology
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] Obviously you don't understand. With the ASSA, it is always possible to find the conditional probability of an observation given a suitable condition. Choosing a condition and asking a question about it changes nothing about the real situation. The difference between the ASSA and RSSA really becomes apparent when the ASSA predicts nonconservation of measure as a function of time. Obviously this does not happen in most everyday, nonfatal situations. Unless you've changed your spots Jacques, you are starting to become incoherent. ASSA is not defined with reference to time, so therefore cannot make any statements about it. The RSSA is. What are you talking about? I really don't know. The ASSA states, and always has, that the effective probability of an observer moment is proportional to it measure. Time doesn't enter this definition, in the same way that seeing a color doesn't enter; the general rule needs no modification to be applied in either case. It was super-obvious in my post that when I talked about a function of time above I was referring to the fact that the measure of observer moments along a computational continuation varies with time. The RSSA, as far as I can see, is not defined at all. I have tried to extropolate the descriptions you guys give into some kind of coherent position for me to attack, but it seems to me that you often contradict yourselves while denying any such contradictions. The role of time in the RSSA is a case in point. BTW, while I'm posting I might as well ask, if you guys are so darn sure consciousness is continuous and that it somehow means it cannot end, how come you seem to have no problem with birth? It seems to me that your arguments would apply equally in that direction. How come you have no trouble picturing a boundary for it in the past? I'm sure you'll come up with some BS answer but this once again shows the foolishness of your position. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: Then maybe I misunderstood you. A tautology is a term with redundant parts, ie it is equivalent to some subset of itself. I took your statement that ASSA is a tautology to mean that ASSA is equivalent to SSA (symbolically ASSA = SSA). I directly contradict this in my first sentence. [JM wrote] From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) tautology n 1: (in logic) a statement that is necessarily true; the statement `he is brave or he is not brave' is a tautology 2: useless repetition; to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology I was not aware of meaning 2 of the word, while I have frequently encountered the word used for meaning 1. The definition I gave and the one you quoted are equivalent. I quoted two very different definitions. The one you gave is equivalent to #2. The one I meant in my 'zombie wives' post was #1. Sorry, I missed the second definition. It is merely a colloquial generalisation of definition 1, and is definitely the one I was using. Generalization? That's BS. They are totally different. Example of def. 1: A or not A Example of def. 2: A and A - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
