--
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3f3b3ec-3c5f-4326-9f63-c43e8c6a238c%40googlegroups.com.
> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think about the past and the future differently.
As in the case of the interrogators of Ypiaria in his book.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a77abaf3-0bdc-493b-8984-047d4a06d6db%40googlegroups.com.
On 11/29/2019 11:55 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 5:39:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 11/29/2019 2:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:11:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> Hue Price argues, we need to overcome our natural tendency to think about the past and the future differently.
Our natural tendency is to remember the past but not the future, so Price asks us to change the way we think in a rather profound way. I can't imagine how he expects us to do that.
John K Clark
As Price says, we do remember (or retrosee) the past and do not remember (or foresee) the future. That's the way we are (in this universe, or part of the universe). But does it have to be that way?
Yes it does. If we remember the future and learned the past then we'd just swap words. If we remembered the both we'd never learn anything, we'd just exist. If we didn't remember anything, either past of future, then we wouldn't exist.
Brent
I don't thinks so.
All of Price's "models" involve stochasticity. They are not deterministic.
I don't see how that counters my point.
Brent
-
As in the case of the interrogators of Ypiaria in his book.
@philipthrift
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post on
perpetual motion machines and the second law.
John Clark posted
"The other type of Perpetual Motion Machine would violate the second law of thermodynamics, you couldn't create energy from nothing but you could keep recycling the same energy and keep extracting work out of it forever. That would violate not just a law of physics but a law of logic too. If you could do that then you could also make entropy decrease, but that would be illogical because there is no getting around the fact that there are just more ways something can be disorganized than organized.
and quoting Hawking:
Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases. — Stephen W. Hawking
https://todayinsci.com/QuotationsCategories/A_Cat/ArrowOfTime-Quotations.htm
In other words systems are more likely to change from organized to disorganized. There is an arrow of time and the second law as currently understood supervenes on it.The problem with this approach is that relying on time
asymmetry alone is narrow-focused and very much 19th century
thinking. Physics of the 20th and 21st century taught us that
time symmetry must be considered in combination with charge and
parity. Therefore, to be accurate, one must consider the second
law in the context of full-fledged CPT symmetry.
I just published a paper discussing this very topic.
Loschmidt’s Paradox, Extended to CPT Symmetry, Bypasses Second Law
(The html version at the site does not render the drawings
properly, you will need to download the pdf version to display
the drawings)
The original Loschmidt's paradox states:
if all physical processes are truly microscopically time-reversible, then any entropy increasing process is as probable as a corresponding entropy decreasing process. Therefore, according to physical laws the change in entropy must be zero.
However, as proven by Boltzmann in his H-Theorem, entropy must
increase with time.
This paper extends Loschmidt's paradox to CPT symmetry: if the
laws of nature are truly CPT symmetrical and reversible, then a
system could return to a previous state even in the presence
of an arrow of time, thereby restoring its entropy to its
original value. This version of the paradox renders moot the
arrow of time assumption and bypasses the H-Theorem.
The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental data.
George Levy
Irvine California--
You received this message because you are 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TGSjszwavfygMdKsqswq263PNvBKCS8b0ujeP-UZMLw%40mail.gmail.com.
George,Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D
Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led him to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and Schrodinger’s cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s chamber and conducted the experiment himself.
Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him Schrodinger’s Katz.
Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)
These experiments involve the first and second
laws of
thermodynamics. I do not have any firm answer to any of these
experiments, but I think they are worth sharing.
1) First Law - These experiments aim at determining whether the forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces) are constant from the point of view of an observer.
a) Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is not radioactive?
b) He then measures the radioactivity of a second radium sample far away from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference between the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?
c) Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the radioactivity of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there any change in the measurements?
d) He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from the counter. What does he find?
e) Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different from the inside?
How does Dr. Katz
explain his
findings? Are the (electromagnetic, strong, weak) forces the same
inside and
outside the chamber? Is energy conserved?
2) Second Law. (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the second law)
Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a heat flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature difference between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.
a) Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature difference never falls below the predetermined value.
b) Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures? Does his explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?
c) What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he observe any difference in heat flow?
I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - just guesses. Do you know the answers?
George
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1745262509.5552079.1577666075675%40mail.yahoo.com.
On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
We are all Wigner’s friends, aren’t we?George,Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of energy invoke any observer like Boltzmann's Brain or Wigner's Friend?You know, we need all the Friends we can get? ;-D
Except that Wigner still had some objectivism left in him, which led him to ask a friend to act as an intermediary between him and Schrodinger’s cat when he could have stepped into Schrodinger’s chamber and conducted the experiment himself.
Writing the paper “Loschmidt’s paradox, extended to CPT symmetry…” led me to question how natural laws such as forces, conservation, quantization and the second law emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The following thought experiments involve Dr. Katz, a very dear, close and nonfactual colleague of Schrodinger and Wigner. You could call him Schrodinger’s Katz.
Dr. Katz has a PhD in physics. As a a pure subjectivist, he volunteers in experiments conducted in the famous Schrodinger’s chamber which contains a radium sample, near a Geiger counter, connected to a detonator set to trigger one ton of TNT (replacing, a la Tegmark, the original vial of cyanide envisaged by Schrodinger.)
These experiments involve the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I do not have any firm answer to any of these experiments, but I think they are worth sharing.
1) First Law - These experiments aim at determining whether the forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces) are constant from the point of view of an observer.
a) Dr. Katz measures the radioactivity of the radium sample near the Geiger counter. Does the measurement show that radium is not radioactive?
b) He then measures the radioactivity of a second radium sample far away from the counter. Is it radioactive? Is there a difference between the radioactivity of the two samples? Why or why not?
c) Dr. Katz may conclude that radium is simply not radioactive and, therefore, the radium-counter-explosive link is not operational. He turns off the inoperational counter and again measures the radioactivity of both radium samples (near and far from the counter) Is there any change in the measurements?
d) He then measures the radioactivity of a polonium sample far from the counter. What does he find?
e) Finally, he opens (from the inside) the door of the chamber, steps outside, and repeat radioactivity measurement on radium and polonium samples located outside. What does he find? The same as or different from the inside?
How does Dr. Katz explain his findings? Are the (electromagnetic, strong, weak) forces the same inside and outside the chamber? Is energy conserved?
2) Second Law. (These experiments attempt to link quantization to the second law)
Dr. Schrodinger replaces the radium sample and Geiger counter by a heat flow device comprised of a metal bar, hot at one end and cold at the other, and a differential thermometer that measures the temperature difference between the two ends of the bar. When the difference falls below a predetermined value, the thermometer triggers the explosive. Dr. Katz is willing to conduct experiments in this new chamber.
a) Dr. Katz measures the temperature difference of the bar. Again, following Tegmark’s cue, one may believe that the temperature difference never falls below the predetermined value.
b) Dr. Katz measures heat flow in a metal bar far away from the thermometer. Does he observe the same kind of anomaly as close to the thermometer? How does Katz explain what he measures? Does his explanation involve quantization of thermal energy?
c) What if he opens the door and steps outside the chamber? Does he observe any difference in heat flow?
I do not have any firm answers to any of these thought experiments - just guesses. Do you know the answers?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27eee35b-3782-6b6d-5d92-f2b8050c9913%40quantics.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a6ee2b82-9a63-cbb7-aa6d-432464847b7a%40verizon.net.
Brent,
You are ignoring the fact that Dr. Katz is in a superposition of
states.
Bruno, one can assume that he wears a lead apron to protect him from radioactivity - but not from the explosion. But I agree with you with regards Everett, or Mechanism cannot make sense in the first person view. No 1p-diary can contain the statement “I did not survive”.
In my post I am trying to lead to this question: Are the laws of
physics anthropically and independently determined by each
observer?
From Katz's point of view he is conducting a quantum Zeno
experiment (well known effect that suppresses quantum transitions
when measurements are performed very frequently). From the point
of view of a person outside the chamber, he is conducting a
Tegmark style suicide experiment.
We may take for granted that from his point of view the
radium near the counter is not radioactive. We are faced with a
counterfactual: since the radium is not radioactive, turning off
the counter would not make any difference from Katz's point of
view.
Another question is whether identical radium samples far
away from the counter would have the same radioactivity as the one
near the counter, (even though the counter is not operative.) Why
or why not?
In other words are the fundamental forces that control radioactivity affected throughout Katz's lab?
The second part of my post had to do with the second law. What
would Katz perceive if the radium source was replaced by a heat
flow device designed to trigger the explosive? Would he perceive heat
quantization as an anthropically determined phenomenon (in
analogy to the quantization of electron's orbit in our world)?
George
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/87C6EAD5-8F3C-436A-BCD0-AD45A6283CC6%40ulb.ac.be.
On 1 Jan 2020, at 04:23, George Levy <gl...@quantics.net> wrote:Brent,
You are ignoring the fact that Dr. Katz is in a superposition of states.
Bruno, one can assume that he wears a lead apron to protect him from radioactivity - but not from the explosion. But I agree with you with regards Everett, or Mechanism cannot make sense in the first person view. No 1p-diary can contain the statement “I did not survive”.
In my post I am trying to lead to this question: Are the laws of physics anthropically and independently determined by each observer?
From Katz's point of view he is conducting a quantum Zeno experiment (well known effect that suppresses quantum transitions when measurements are performed very frequently). From the point of view of a person outside the chamber, he is conducting a Tegmark style suicide experiment.
We may take for granted that from his point of view the radium near the counter is not radioactive. We are faced with a counterfactual: since the radium is not radioactive, turning off the counter would not make any difference from Katz's point of view.
Another question is whether identical radium samples far away from the counter would have the same radioactivity as the one near the counter, (even though the counter is not operative.) Why or why not?
In other words are the fundamental forces that control radioactivity affected throughout Katz's lab?
The second part of my post had to do with the second law. What would Katz perceive if the radium source was replaced by a heat flow device designed to trigger the explosive? Would he perceive heat quantization as an anthropically determined phenomenon (in analogy to the quantization of electron's orbit in our world)?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/178d5569-a552-875c-cca0-5114e565fa55%40quantics.net.