"spooky action at a distance"

[Gary Oberbrunner]

As I'm sure you've all seen, the news is full of a further confirmation of entanglement, e.g. Markoff in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html?_r=0

So for all us MWIers, this is not news. Deutsch spells out how everything is subluminal and not at all spooky, as long as you accept that experiments have multiple actual outcomes, and all a given outcome shows you is which "universe" you (little-y you) happen to be in.

My question to the group is this: how to explain this to others in such a way as to prevent their head from exploding? I've tried, starting from the double-slit experiment and so on, but usually I either lose people or they can't accept the multiple-world hypothesis. Which is of course a very reasonable position, until confronted with evidence like Delft University's.

(Of course they also all jump straight to "ooh, faster-than-light communication/travel _is_ possible!" which needs to be nipped in the bud, but I'm OK explaining that part at least.)

--

Gary

[Allen Francom]

I guess nobody read Miroljub's paper regarding the physical branching is not possible nowadays...

The same principle imho applies to the spatial space.  There is none.

There is no traversal of a distance.  Distance does not cause delay, delay creates the illusion of distance.

The only material that there is, is entirely time-like.

The spatial space is an artifact of that process.

I don't like it when my head explodes either ;)

i.e., Einstein WAS on the right track at one point.  Just don't ever say "space-like", ever.

Try it for a while.

Time is the big thing, "now".  hahaha

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

"Klaatu barada nikto!"

light...@gmail.com

[Jason Resch]

Gary,

I put this presentation together a while ago that makes the case for splitting and the how/why it works. I don't think it is something that can be explained in a conversation. It takes a lot of thought, concentration, understanding of experiments, etc. People need to gradually come to terms with their other selves. :-)

Perhaps one of the best "One line arguments" for QM is that "We have good evidence that special relativity is true; we also have good evidence that quantum mechanics is true -- but the only way they can both be true is if there are many universes."

Jason

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> wrote:

--

[Allen Francom]

Ok, but somebody is going to have to fix something

So, briefly, regarding "fungible worlds"

According to Miroljub, the base of resource is happily again now viewable as finite.

So any "MWI-Like" effort left standing today has to be "non-physical", more like "many minds".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation

Multi-user/Multi-tasking, same RAM

Choose various deompositions of THE universe at your own leisure.

"The way is shut!" to physical branching.  Or to be fair let's say the door is closing while we wait for the passing of the previous generation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6424

Yesterday was when McFly was supposed to appear from long, long ago.

We do have hoverboards now.

It is the future already.

Just sayin.

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps one of the best "One line arguments" for QM is that "We have good evidence that special relativity is true; we also have good evidence that quantum mechanics is true -- but the only way they can both be true is if there are many universes."

But that's not strictly true, is it? A single non-causal universe ("backward causation", aka the transactional interpretation) would also reconcile them, as would true FTL signaling. As MWIers, though, we reject those in favor of the simpler explanation that the universe is vastly more huge than we thought (which realization has, of course, reoccurred throughout history).

I'll read your primer, thanks!

--

Gary

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess nobody read Miroljub's paper regarding the physical branching is not possible nowadays...

Or maybe we read it and thought it was incorrect or incoherent? Please resend a link. But I'm afraid I'm not ready to abandon space altogether.

--

Gary

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

I put this presentation together a while ago that makes the case for splitting and the how/why it works. I don't think it is something that can be explained in a conversation. It takes a lot of thought, concentration, understanding of experiments, etc. People need to gradually come to terms with their other selves. :-)

Just skimmed this; it's very good. You're only missing the last step: the two people now come back together, at sub-light-speed, to compare their results. There was no "instantaneous" FTL signaling. (In order to make that step more clear, you'd need to use entangled spin or polarization pairs rather than simple photons but that's an easy step.) Of course then you have to deal with the hidden variable objection (I get that all the time).

--

Gary

[Allen Francom]

Ok, that was this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6424

It is out in Springer

To summarize, my take, Miroljub is a physicist, not a philosopher of physics.  He makes the observation regarding a few things Everett did not now at the time and have been discovered later on down the line, an exploration of "parallel occurrence of decoherence" and "entanglement relativity".  In the end, it is the combination of these that results in "no physical branching".  This is kind of a big "Oh..."

Regarding the spatial space, I understand, this next part isn't going to be easy, but for now you might agree that entanglement performs as if the states in question are "immediately adjacent" and that may turn out to be a problem only for "classical eyes" whose only information comes by way of delay.

The yard stick is composed of The Behavior of "standing" states in the presumed form of atoms, chemicals, bonds.

There is nothing static in the yard stick on close inspection.  Itself is a behavior.

The only information is a daisy chain of how long did it take for this electron to emit a photon absorbed by that electron.

If you really think that through very carefully and add the observation of Fermilab's Leon Lederman "The radius of the electron is Zero"...

Where is it that you think "size" comes from ?

What "yard stick" do you use now that is not a "behavior" measured by "relative delay" ?

imho, it is worth it to meditate on this.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Allen Francom]

Oh !

Looking back on it, this may not stick out very well, but what Miroljub did was not argue a differing "interpretation".

What Miroljub did was Core universally valid QM.  "Interpret this !"

Does that make sense ?  It is not an argument.  It is "the way is shut" for such branching interpretation.

You can't put a title like that on a paper though and get it published.

People get hooked on their popular things and it all goes political.

So, somebody has to blow up his core competent maths or else it stands.  The ref's couldn't do it and we spent a couple years trying to find MWI guys who could.  All the big names.  Many engaged, some were too busy doing other things.

As yet, there is no rebuttal.

[Allen Francom]

So "fungible worlds" is a possible way out, if you more or less "time share" existing resources with varying perspectives of different rates and information horizons, but it cannot work off of the same fundamental Everett style "branching" it is more "many minds"-like, as I was saying. ( or else it doesn't fly )

[Jason Resch]

Gary,

The example in the slides isn't so much to explain EPR, but I did provide this alternative write up that describes EPR in the many-worlds framework:

          In the EPR experiment, an electron and positron are created in such a way that they have 

opposite spins. They are then transported to separate locations and measured at the same time. 

The mystery under the Copenhagen Interpretation was this: If the particles are each in a 

superposition, and measurement collapses that superposition, at random, to a definite result, how 

is the definite result at one location made to agree with the result at the other location? The 

process of collapse cannot happen twice, because two random outcomes could disagree (which is 

never seen to happen). Therefore, the first particle to be measured must somehow instantly affect 

the other, no matter how distant.

             Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought there were only two possible explanations. The first, 

was that there was some faster-than-light influence between the two particles. The second, was 

that there were additional properties (not contained in quantum theory) that were present in 

both particles all along, and these properties determined the outcome of the measurement. In 

conclusion, either quantum mechanics was incomplete, or special relativity was violated. But a 

third possibility was overlooked.

              The EPR authors assumed that a measurement could only have one outcome. This idea is 

so obvious and so conventional, that the authors didn’t even realized they were making an 

assumption in their reasoning. This was a critical oversight. All the problems with enforcing 

instantaneous agreement over vast distances arise from this assumption. If measurements can

have more than one outcome, then the Earth scientists can measure the electron’s spin to be 

negative and positive, and the Proxima Centauri scientists can measure the positron’s spin to be 

negative and positive. Faster-than-light effects are not required and hidden variables are not 

needed.

            After a measurement is made on Earth, of say a positive spin, the Earth scientists can 

correctly infer that the Proxima Centauri scientists measured a negative spin. This is because the 

state of the system is a positive spin electron (e↑) correlated with a negative spin positron (p↓) 

superposed with a negative spin electron (e↓) correlated with a positive spin positron (p↑):

(e↑ × p↓) + (e↓ × p↑)

           Although the electron is itself in two states: having both positive and negative spin, each

electron is correlated with a positron having an opposite spin. Once Earth scientists measure the 

electron, they become correlated with one of the two electron states, and thus also correlated with 

one of the two positron states. When the Earth scientists receive the radio signal from Proxima 

Centauri (four years later) the message in radio signal depends on the measurement of the 

positron. Thus the signal is itself correlated with the positron, which as we saw is already 

correlated with the electron. The radio message, is therefore, bound to report a positron spin that 

agrees with the measured electron spin.

(Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓ × Proxima↓) + (Earth↓ × e↓ × p↑ × Proxima↑)

       It is not possible for the Earth scientists who measured the electron with a positive spin 

(Earth↑) to hear from the Proxima Centauri scientists who measured the positron to also have a 

positive spin (Proxima↑), as they are in a different part of the superposition. Therefore mutual 

agreement between the distant scientists is assured. Everett’s theory explains why and how this 

works, without resorting to special relativity violating effects and without having to modify 

quantum mechanics with additional hidden variables.

             Everett’s theory also provides an account for Schrödinger’s cat, and its various 

permutations. It does so in a way that does require observation to hold any special role in the 

physical description. In Everett’s theory, observation does not trigger the immediate appearance 

of a dead cat or a living cat, complete with its history over the previous hour.

 

            According to Everett, when the unstable atom enters a superposition of having decayed and 

not decayed. This puts the detector into a superposition of detecting and not detecting the decay, 

and the poison of being released and not released, and the cat dying and surviving. This 

superposition remains isolated to the confines of the steel box for the whole hour, until the door is 

opened, and the contents of the box (in a superposition) spreads as particles in the box interact 

with particles outside the box. The observer who peeks inside thus becomes part of the 

superposition. One sees the dead cat and one sees the live cat.

            It is not the act of observation that determines the state of the system, as the CI supposed. 

Rather, the state of the system affects the observer who looks at it. The problem of a live cat 

popping into existence disappears, both cats, the live cat and the dead cat existed the entire time. 

The cat in the alive state was experiencing and forming memories throughout the course of the 

hour, and the person who sees the live cat becomes correlated with that cat and its whole history, 

including the fact that the poison was not released, the Geiger counter never detected the decay, 

and so on.

         The related case of Wigner’s friend is explained in the same way. Wigner’s friend, upon

opening the box enters the superposed state, and Wigner becomes superposed when he checks 

on his friend. By eliminating the observer’s privileged role in physics, the problem of multiple 

observers is solved. So too, is the problem of no observers. There is no longer the mystery of how a 

universe could suddenly come into being the moment the first conscious observer was born into 

it.

Jason

--

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps one of the best "One line arguments" for QM is that "We have good evidence that special relativity is true; we also have good evidence that quantum mechanics is true -- but the only way they can both be true is if there are many universes."

But that's not strictly true, is it? A single non-causal universe ("backward causation", aka the transactional interpretation) would also reconcile them,

But the effects of collapse can affect things at times and locations outside the past or future light cones of the collapse event. Even accepting backwards causation, that causation would have to be faster than c. Also, as Feynman diagrams illustrate, time and its direction are relative. Flipping a Feynman diagram upside down or twisting it won't depict a physically impossible interaction, so I don't see in any sense that backwards causation could be distinguished from regular causation.

 

as would true FTL signaling.

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity. Some disagree by saying no useful information can be transmitted by the collapse, but this misses the point. I don't think it is possible to reconcile collapse and special relativity. Either collapse happens and some physical effects travel faster than c and relativity is false or collapse does not happen.

As MWIers, though, we reject those in favor of the simpler explanation that the universe is vastly more huge than we thought (which realization has, of course, reoccurred throughout history).

I'll read your primer, thanks!

I look forward to your comments/corrections/questions! Thanks.

Jason

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

It does so in a way that does require observation to hold any special role in the 

physical description.

I assume you mean does NOT require!  Otherwise, a nice summary. 

The most common objection I get (from an "intelligent non-scientist") after this point is "why don't we see both live and dead cat?" or "what happens to the other one?" which gets into decoherence.

But typically, in my experience, people get bogged down near the beginning of this. (You're basically following FoR, which is what I do as well, and is a good start IMHO.)

Thanks again!

--

Gary

[Jason Resch]

Gary,

Thanks, good catch. I did mean to say "does not require"!

If someone asked me the "why don't we see both" I would respond with "QM tells us particles can be in more than one place at the same time. Well what are brains made of? Particles!"

Jason

--

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity.

Of course, that's the point. You can either choose to discard relativity (no-FTL), _or_ causation (I'm not sure I agree that backward causation has to be "faster" than c, since it's going backwards it can "start" at any future time, but I find that whole argument somewhat circular so it's hard for me to defend), _or_ a single-valued universe. Some people would rather discard special relativity because a multi-valued universe is too mind-blowing, and the idea that there's a finite speed limit to the universe seems less certain. At least that's what I glean from the uncomfortable pauses when I try to discuss this. :-)

--

Gary

[LizR]

The thing about backwards causation is that it's inherent in our existing theories of physics at the quantum level, or so I'm led to believe. There is nothing at that level which says "time goes this way", and systems are free to evolve in either time direction. This is true for things like an atom absorbing or emitting a photon, for example (or probably for molecular collisions, at least in principle - but see below, the mere existence of molecules able to do this may already be above the "level that can be considered fnudamental").

Obviously, backwards causation doesn't happen on the macro-scale! But the laws of physics are fairyl time-direction-agnostic, apart from a few known time-asymmetric processes.

1 - neutral kaon decay violates CPT symmetry (but its effect is probably insignificant in almost all observed phenomena).

2 - gravitational collapse is very asymmetric! To coin a phrase along the lines of "no hair", this might be called "no white holes" -- although once again, physics is agnostic on whether these might exist, but observation indicates they don't.

3 - the expansion of the universe

As far as I know, that's it. And so far, any attempts to build the Arrow of Time into fundamental physics remain highly speculative.

Following Huw Price, suppose the AoT isn't fundamental? That would make it emergent, as most physics indicates, and the smoking gun here seems to be the Big Bang. Given that the universe has this origin, an AoT will naturally follow. A BB automatically gives rise to processes that move matter away from thermodynamic equilibrium along one time direction.

These are the familiar processes that are (more or less) known to have taken place in and after the BB - nucleons forming, then nuclei, then atoms, eventually stars and galaxies. Most of these structures would melt away in a reverse Big Bang, indicating the fundamental time symmetry of most of the processes. The obvious exception is number 2 above, although on the long scale black holes do evaporate, so there's a rough symmetry even there.

None of this is "backwards causation as familiarly understood", of course - eggs unbreaking, etc - which is highly unlikely to ever occur, despite the time-symmetry of (most of?) the underlying laws. The Big Bang imposes a very strict AoT on matter, an entropy gradient that is in the process of running down over trillions of years (but can never quite reach equilibrium in an expanding universe).

However it does imply that "backwards causation" occurs routinely at the quantum level, and this can be used to explain a lot of "weirdness" like the ERP result, or Bell's inequality. To take the latter, John Bell worked out that time symmetry would act as an alternative explanation, that would do away with the "intuitive weirdness" of his result, but he didn't think such a thing was possible. Of course there is a familiar bias amongst people, who see the world full of inexorably increasing entropy, against "reverse causality" operating at any level - but this is perhaps misguided, after all this would merely be yet another example of intuition failing when applied to quantum mechanics!

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

None of this is "backwards causation as familiarly understood", of course - eggs unbreaking, etc - which is highly unlikely to ever occur

That's not the backward causation I'm talking about, that's "just" backward entropy. The kind you need to deal with APR is an event in the future "reaching back" into the past and actually changing it. I.e. when A measures spin-up (+), that "causes" (a long time ago and far away) the original particle emission to be (have been?) A+, B-; the "causation" then flows forward to B who measures spin-down. Look up "pilot waves" to see the idea. It's the arrow of time operating both ways at once. Sorry about the scare quotes, the whole thing seems like hogwash to me but some otherwise sensible people espouse it -- I assume as a way of heading off the dreaded multiverse. And of course if you go for the multiverse, you don't need any of that. Everything is local, subluminal and nicely behaved (well, except there's _so_ much more out there than we thought).

Anyway, I guess I'm not going to write a comment on the Times article. I don't think there's any decent way to get it across in 500 words or less.

--

Gary

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, that was this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6424

Haven't finished it, it's quite dense and I don't know the references. I may not be able to interpret it well. But sec. 3.1 seems immediately problematic. It makes some very severe universal claims but then says (paraphrasing) "of course there are many systems where these claims don't apply". Hmm.

--

Gary

[Allen Francom]

Hi Gary,

Yes.

The point is however there are one or more cases heretofore unknown where the branching does not apply.

No longer is branching universal.

Of the remaining cases many of those are simply too complex to prove at the moment, with the model selected for the paper, and yet... they must all adhere to the same rules.

In all of this, not the least problem of course is the whole concept of decoherence which must itself be employed to begin with.

When I first got involved, the presentation was already more generalized however, and read as a continuous series of linear canonical transformations, not even words, let alone English.

Rest assured, this is the simplified version for demonstration purposes, and as such it invokes the QBM model since it is the most universally presented in terms of such foundations from the outset, so there can be no mistaking the observation of this 'discrepancy'...  to begin with.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Allen Francom]

Oh... and you also have to ask, it is implied in the circles of Titans... are  any of the cases not addressed in this context themselves "physically realistic"... you'll see some strong hints of that the rest of the way through.

Not all solutions are realistic, just like not all probabilities are physically realized.

Of those that are real, that can be spoken of in the context of Physics...  now...

[Allen Francom]

( you get it though, if the interpretation is not universally valid, it is not a valid interpretation )

yes ?

It only takes one domino

[Allen Francom]

And that is why it is so "heavy" in spite of being delicately worded with lip service and homage all over the place.

It constitutes an Invalidation in no uncertain terms.

[Allen Francom]

So, if that is more or less settled for the moment, re: "Forgive me Everett", then what does it have to do with the thread "spooky action at a distance".

The two concepts that it makes reference to are deep, Parallel occurrence of Decoherence, and Entanglement Relativity, as corollaries of the universally valid QM. ( not in the realm of mere "interpretation" )

So it comes up more or less by way of analogy to the classical concept of center of mass.

You are free to choose a center of mass between any two masses anywhere.

Quantum Mechanically, this "artificial idea of a thing" becomes the actual target of experiment, again, the freedom to choose which "center of mass" according to QM is simply your choice - and you can choose however many you want, and even all at the same time, and overlapping, earth moon, earth sun, earth gary, etc., classically speaking at least.  Stuff stats to get real so to speak when we get to Rutherford and what is really targeted and how is that artificial notion actually the bulk of the physical evidence when bouncing atoms around...  most fun...

In QM you can choose whatever notion of "this" or "that" and you are most formally speaking not in terms of any "atom" or "electron" but "states", "hilbert space" and "hamiltonian".  You choose what left and right means, what is object, what is apparatus, who is alice and who is bob, slice and dice however you like.

Now to treat such a 'decomposition' you have this half and that half so to speak, and inescapably these are bound by entanglement relativity no matter who looks through what prism at each half.

To my reasoning this is a more fundamental view of what "relativity" really means.

Then if it is possible to consider QM as "more fundamental" than SR and GR, ( since, for example, it is our most accurate of all theories ) and thus "closer to the fundamental goings on" of whatever the universe is really doing...  we can examine the notion that Entanglement is yet more fundamental than is the spatial space.

Then it is merely a matter of observing relative delay and noting "Hey, if we plot the delay relations it looks like the spatial space already" - and we didn't have to put anything into a box of space, the space "happened" or it appeared to in a way that is completely indistinguishable except perhaps at the extremes where GR fails such as black holes.

But the only material is states and relative delay.

And that is why I got involved with that other thing in the first place, because it leads here.

Entanglement doesn't happen in space, it makes it.

[Jason Resch]

Allen,

I am curious what comments you would have regarding this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

Which describes an identity between entanglement and measurement.

Jason

[Allen Francom]

Hi Jason,

I actually had that one going the other day but it was going, and going... while I was doing other things.

Is there perhaps a good spot to jump to, or do I have to make it through the whole entire thing ?

[Allen Francom]

Hi Jason,

Maybe I can infer what you are asking

Are you asking, why it should appear that say photons take a path through space and produce interference and not ?

Thus there is a view that is taking space first and photons travel in it

Thus the "definition" of entanglement carries forward this gross assumption

Yes ?  If there are really photons, then they really travel through space, and if there are em waves then they really do travel through space...

And the interference is the "proof"

?

My response to that is that this remains an assumption which started when we were cavemen.  By and large "it works" sure.

But without knowing how the spatial space functions to begin with, how is "here" HELD, then I can only tell you "it is the same as everything else" until we crack open the inner workings of the spatial space.

Much the same was as the pixels on your screen can be manipulated ( in a linear address space ) to make you think you are flying your spaceship in 3D...  what we really discuss is "total information" and its relations regardless of "emergent phenomena" such as "geometry" and "gravity" and "distance"...

And I would ask you to pause right here for as little or as long as it takes, what I just said is very heavy if I have your question right.  And in fairness, I am twisting the arms of Titans to make this case, to open their eyes as well.

But you asked, and there it is.

[Allen Francom]

Hi Jason,

I think it will be fun to continue a discussion throughout the video

Let's say we are approximately 19 minutes in to the video and he is playing with polarization and still thinking about "paths" and this happened first and that shouldn't have happened before, etc., etc., and he refers to the copenhagen interpretation.

Let's not.  Let's just do things the right way, without need of "interpretation".

Let's put some bits to represent components of some apparatus that some photon is going to "travel through"


                    1         1
   1   1     1
                    1         1

If instead we "draw" the apparatus in some hilbert space we see a lot more bits of the entire system's probability

( crudely like so )

                            00100                            00100

                            00100                            00100

                            01110                            01110

 11101    01101                 01010

 00101    11101                 11111             

 10010    00101                 00000

                            00100                            01110

                            10001                            10001

                            01110                            01110

Or more rather it all looks like one over all quantum system

0101100110101001101010100010011100010010010011101001010...

And along comes Hamilton and transforms the entire system in one fell swoop.

Booyah

Which "way" did 'the supposed photon" "go"

No

Wrong question.  That's not how it seems to really work.

Set Interpretations aside for a moment, and blammo, total information is totally transformed.

The questions come up though regarding "what is time" even in this sort of "pure" representation.  Do "these" bits have a different "time" than "those" bits, and then how are they still a part of the whole...

Hopefully even if I don't have your question right in my mind you can already see where all this is going

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

Maybe I can infer what you are asking

Are you asking, why it should appear that say photons take a path through space and produce interference and not ?

Thus there is a view that is taking space first and photons travel in it

Thus the "definition" of entanglement carries forward this gross assumption

Yes ?  If there are really photons, then they really travel through space, and if there are em waves then they really do travel through space...

And the interference is the "proof"

?

My response to that is that this remains an assumption which started when we were cavemen.  By and large "it works" sure.

But without knowing how the spatial space functions to begin with, how is "here" HELD, then I can only tell you "it is the same as everything else" until we crack open the inner workings of the spatial space.

Much the same was as the pixels on your screen can be manipulated ( in a linear address space ) to make you think you are flying your spaceship in 3D...  what we really discuss is "total information" and its relations regardless of "emergent phenomena" such as "geometry" and "gravity" and "distance"...

And I would ask you to pause right here for as little or as long as it takes, what I just said is very heavy if I have your question right.  And in fairness, I am twisting the arms of Titans to make this case, to open their eyes as well.

But you asked, and there it is.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

I actually had that one going the other day but it was going, and going... while I was doing other things.

Is there perhaps a good spot to jump to, or do I have to make it through the whole entire thing ?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

Allen,

I am curious what comments you would have regarding this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

Which describes an identity between entanglement and measurement.

Jason

[Allen Francom]

Hi Jason,

So now at approximately 27 minutes there is the EPRG scenario ( just so happened I was twisting someone's arm the other day )

I think this part is more exactly what you are referring to.

This is where I would say ( See, you cannot truly physically isolate the Cat, for in order for it to be a part of the universe it is part of this same daisy-chain of entanglement )  Elsewhere you may encounter "quantum correlations" "channels" etc., and in the depths of these you might start to see "but yes, we can *always* find an entanglement expression for anything properly under consideration".

( you can find in the literature, "we can *always* find an entanglement expression" )

And so I think it is a nice try.

But instead what I see is this:  there is an "information horizon", too much information to know and hold, too long of a time-span that it doesn't fit in the laboratory in your lifetime, etc.,

In the case where you want to try to communicate with your buddy across the universe indeed somebody had to 'hold on' to something so the information doesn't "go random". 

I say, no it does not go random, it just becomes more than you can keep track of.

And the mechanism persists in spite of whether you performed an experiment or not.

The ability for the experimental result exists before you do the experiment, and it is always available to be mapped.

Ultimately though for anybody to know anything and even be here some "measurement" has to happen.

It is a little bit of a chicken and egg issue then.

However I see more evidence that the entanglement is instead inherent and pervasive, and it is a special case when you want to shine a light on it and force it into the open.

You can't drink water until you fill your glass, but...  excuse me, what about this river...  at what point does 'water' exist for the given purpose ?

Water *always* has the ability to be in the glass whether or not you are trying to take a sip.

[Allen Francom]

Starting at 49 minutes or so...  this is great

It is a very serious thing though, whenever somebody says "entropy" they can be referring to different things.

I prefer to think of it always entirely that it means "a measure of information" and then steer the conversation accordingly. ( I am not very popular except over very long durations where somebody finally goes "Oh..." )

The problem if any that I have at 49+ is that QM is a statement of Constraints.  It does not "run".

So QM demands something that runs that produces the statistics that it describes(constrains).

This is very important.  "Quantum Computing" well, no.  Something that runs and produces statistics consistent with the "requirements document" of QM...  yes.  imnsho.

At about 58m talking about multiple universes, yes there is not one.  There has to be "two" so to speak.  You have to rub two sticks together to make fire, you cannot rub one stick against itself.  In the QM decomposition in to subsystems with which to be able to make a measurement between two sticks in the first place you find that one stick cannot fully derive the other stick, but what can be derived is done in the form of Entanglement Relativity.  ( but even this is by 'information horizon' so in the end it is just one, you just cannot take a bite so big as to eat the whole universe at once )

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity.  I don't think it is possible to reconcile collapse and special relativity.

 

​Actually it does violate special relativity, but not the more nuanced ​improved theory of General Relativity that Einstein discovered 10 years after special relativity. And from experimental observations there can no longer be any doubt, FTL influences do exist. And there are other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics but Many Worlds is my favorite because although weird it is in my opinion less weird than the alternatives.  

​> ​

Some disagree by saying no useful information can be transmitted by the collapse, but this misses the point.

​I think that is exactly the point, matter energy and information ​can not travel faster than light but influences can and do. 

 

​And General Relativity says that ​

matter energy and information

​ must travel through space slower than light but space itself can move at any speed. That's why every cosmologist ​alive thinks that galaxies exist beyond our observational horizon but we can never see them because they are moving away from us faster than light, or rather the space between us and them is expanding faster than light; and General Relativity is perfectly OK with that. 

 John K Clark   

[Jason Resch]

If you're familiar with the basics perhaps start at 34 minutes in where he begins to explain what measurement really is.

Jason

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

Maybe I can infer what you are asking

Are you asking, why it should appear that say photons take a path through space and produce interference and not ?

No, I am only pointing out a view which I think you might appreciate. He argues for a "0 universe interpretation" -- in contrast to many-worlds. You need to see the whole video to appreciate his explanation.

Jason

 

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Starting at 49 minutes or so...  this is great

It is a very serious thing though, whenever somebody says "entropy" they can be referring to different things.

I prefer to think of it always entirely that it means "a measure of information" and then steer the conversation accordingly. ( I am not very popular except over very long durations where somebody finally goes "Oh..." )

The problem if any that I have at 49+ is that QM is a statement of Constraints.  It does not "run".

So QM demands something that runs that produces the statistics that it describes(constrains).

Are you familiar with either Bruno Marchal's or Russell Standish's work on this? They show how a quantum reality emerges from the statistics of observation in a universe where all observations exist.

Standish:

See Chapter 7 (page 115) and Appendix D  page 217 from Russell Standish's book "Theory of Nothing": http://swc2.hccs.edu/kindle/theoryofnothing.pdf

In it, Standish shows that the quantum mechanics, including the Schrodinger equation, can be derived from a few basic assumptions about observation within an ensemble where all possible conscious observations exist.

Marchal:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf

Jason

 

This is very important.  "Quantum Computing" well, no.  Something that runs and produces statistics consistent with the "requirements document" of QM...  yes.  imnsho.

At about 58m talking about multiple universes, yes there is not one.  There has to be "two" so to speak.  You have to rub two sticks together to make fire, you cannot rub one stick against itself.  In the QM decomposition in to subsystems with which to be able to make a measurement between two sticks in the first place you find that one stick cannot fully derive the other stick, but what can be derived is done in the form of Entanglement Relativity.  ( but even this is by 'information horizon' so in the end it is just one, you just cannot take a bite so big as to eat the whole universe at once )

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jason,

So now at approximately 27 minutes there is the EPRG scenario ( just so happened I was twisting someone's arm the other day )

I think this part is more exactly what you are referring to.

This is where I would say ( See, you cannot truly physically isolate the Cat, for in order for it to be a part of the universe it is part of this same daisy-chain of entanglement )  Elsewhere you may encounter "quantum correlations" "channels" etc., and in the depths of these you might start to see "but yes, we can *always* find an entanglement expression for anything properly under consideration".

( you can find in the literature, "we can *always* find an entanglement expression" )

And so I think it is a nice try.

But instead what I see is this:  there is an "information horizon", too much information to know and hold, too long of a time-span that it doesn't fit in the laboratory in your lifetime, etc.,

In the case where you want to try to communicate with your buddy across the universe indeed somebody had to 'hold on' to something so the information doesn't "go random". 

I say, no it does not go random, it just becomes more than you can keep track of.

And the mechanism persists in spite of whether you performed an experiment or not.

The ability for the experimental result exists before you do the experiment, and it is always available to be mapped.

Ultimately though for anybody to know anything and even be here some "measurement" has to happen.

It is a little bit of a chicken and egg issue then.

However I see more evidence that the entanglement is instead inherent and pervasive, and it is a special case when you want to shine a light on it and force it into the open.

You can't drink water until you fill your glass, but...  excuse me, what about this river...  at what point does 'water' exist for the given purpose ?

Water *always* has the ability to be in the glass whether or not you are trying to take a sip.

--

"Klaatu barada nikto!"

light...@gmail.com

--

[Allen Francom]

Hi Jason, 

Bruno is quite a character.  It has been a while, I'll have to revisit Standish.

Invariably I get into a loop with Bruno as regards ghostly freedom of a non-physically realized perspective.

I appreciate the all perspectives simultaneously "selecting all possible quantum subsystems".

This is however inherent in the hamiltonian.

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:58 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity.  I don't think it is possible to reconcile collapse and special relativity.

 

​Actually it does violate special relativity, but not the more nuanced ​improved theory of General Relativity that Einstein discovered 10 years after special relativity. And from experimental observations there can no longer be any doubt, FTL influences do exist. And there are other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics but Many Worlds is my favorite because although weird it is in my opinion less weird than the alternatives.  

You seem to believe MWI is a non-local theory, but this is incorrect understanding. MWI is local and does not contain FTL influences. I have provided you citations for this in the past.

 

​> ​

Some disagree by saying no useful information can be transmitted by the collapse, but this misses the point.

​I think that is exactly the point, matter energy and information ​can not travel faster than light but influences can and do. 

 

See my description of the EPR experiment under the MWI interpretation and show me what exceeded the speed of light in all of that.

 

Jason

​And General Relativity says that ​

matter energy and information

​ must travel through space slower than light but space itself can move at any speed. That's why every cosmologist ​alive thinks that galaxies exist beyond our observational horizon but we can never see them because they are moving away from us faster than light, or rather the space between us and them is expanding faster than light; and General Relativity is perfectly OK with that. 

 John K Clark   

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jason, 

Bruno is quite a character.  It has been a while, I'll have to revisit Standish.

Invariably I get into a loop with Bruno as regards ghostly freedom of a non-physically realized perspective.

It is difficult to overcome our inherent natural assumption that physics is the explanation rather than something to be explained. Once you let go of that assumption, it because easier to accept ideas such as physics emerging from the consequences of self-existent arithmetical truths, and the first-person experiences of computational relations that exist for the same reason that "17 is prime" is a true statement, and would be true without a physical universe. It offers the hope even of explain why our reality is a quantum reality.

 

I appreciate the all perspectives simultaneously "selecting all possible quantum subsystems".

This is however inherent in the hamiltonian.

Standish derives the Shrodinger equation from a basic assumptions about information and how observation work in an infinite ensemble containing all observations. Bruno Marchal shows that this ensemble exists if one assumes computationalism (the leading theory of mind in cognitive science) and that arithmetical truth is independent of you and me (or anyone).

Jason

[Allen Francom]

Yeah, but Bruno goes off the reservation at one point where the observer is no longer held in evidence by any information/computationalism.  If he will close the parenthesis on that, it would be great.  We went round and round for a couple months.

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, but Bruno goes off the reservation at one point where the observer is no longer held in evidence by any information/computationalism. 

I don't understand what you are saying here. The observer is fundamental in Bruno's theory.

Jason

[Allen Francom]

The observer is at one point no longer part of the model

A ghost, or a god.

No bits in evidence.

I don't think it is necessary to escape the universe to explain the universe, once we get to the point where we can say "anything and allthing that can achieve the following is a possible 'origin' "  - computational equivalence

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

The observer is at one point no longer part of the model

A ghost, or a god.

No bits in evidence.

I don't think it is necessary to escape the universe to explain the universe, once we get to the point where we can say "anything and allthing that can achieve the following is a possible 'origin' "  - computational equivalence

I think you might be misunderstanding Bruno's theory. My understanding of it is the ultimate reality is the arithmetical reality. Such theories are extremely simple (e.g. described by the axioms of Robinson or Peano Arithmetic). The arithmetical reality contains all computations. All computations include all digital physics universes, emulations of our Hubble Volume down to the Plank Scale, all brain states of all possible conscious observers, and therefore all possible experiences.

As such it is a candidate T.O.E. which is so far consistent with all known facts, and is by far the simplest. It explains why the universe is quantum, and why the universes exists (it exists for the same reason that 2+2=4, it's just a slightly more complex computation/relation than this simple addition).

[Allen Francom]

You mean

Without the universe, something is there to have logic and perform math first ?

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

You mean

Without the universe, something is there to have logic and perform math first ?

 You can't ever hope to explain the universe if you must assumption the universe at the start. Do some private reflection on the matter: why do you believe the physical universe has to be the most fundamental explanation of reality? There is certainly no logical reason, so what is your justification for clinging so strongly to this hypothesis?

[Allen Francom]

That's what I was saying

Beyond those bounds it could be anything, and there can be an infinite number of ways to make a consistent unvierse, monkeys, typewriters, math, video game... and for us, there is no way to choose.  It is "beyond the event horizon" so to speak.

That's why I mentioned "computational equivalence" - whatever it is we cannot constrain the computational equivalence to anything else.

So, let's finish investigating our own sandbox.

;)

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's what I was saying

Beyond those bounds it could be anything, and there can be an infinite number of ways to make a consistent unvierse, monkeys, typewriters, math, video game... and for us, there is no way to choose.  It is "beyond the event horizon" so to speak.

That's why I mentioned "computational equivalence" - whatever it is we cannot constrain the computational equivalence to anything else.

So, let's finish investigating our own sandbox.

;)

All computational systems are equivalent, and you can describe then in many ways. That said, any system capable of describing and accounting for the existence of all computations is a legitimate TOE. Why not start with the simplest and see what other predictions we can confirm from it? I'm not satisfied by explanations that draw the line at the physical reality we see and assume further progress beyond that is impossible.

[Allen Francom]

That approach is near and dear to my heart actually.

We have enough "requirements document" to go ahead and fashion a running model and then try to make the two meet in the middle and work out any kinks at BOTH ends.

Sure.

In order for me to try that, I need a couple things still.

[Allen Francom]

snips

Hi Jason,

To this end, perhaps you can see my motivation now, physical MWI is a no go, as well as the spatial space and for the same fundamental reason.

If I am to "code" a foundation for physics then it must obey the rules and play with some finite or at least countable resource(s).

If I give you 4 points but I do not specify a space, I just say they each have a unique identity, and I say they all "have a pointer" to each other but I do not say this in geometric terms, you can then imagine a communication network that has already the same "information content" as a 3D+t "spacetime" without invoking any caveman notion of such.

The volume is "there" but yet it is not physically real...  ;)

Voila.  That's what I want first, from everybody.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

You seem to believe MWI is a non-local theory,

​I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

 

​> ​

MWI is local and does not contain FTL influences.

I hope that's wrong because if its not them t

hen MWI would be dead wrong. If something doesn't match experiment then that's the end of the matter, there is no appeal its 

​just not right.

  John K Clark  

[LizR]

Why, are there any known FTL influences? I can't think of any (that aren't open to alternative interpretations).

[Allen Francom]

So, if this is getting to noisy let me know and I'll make a different thread or something or spawn off the interested parties.

But for those following, if you can see what I just said, "space isn't even there", can't be cut with a knife, and being thus non-physical, has no place in "physics".

Thereby it is my contention, we can now ask what is really going on without it and likely do a much better job of things.

In some information realm then there is some oomph and some distinction, this oomph and that oomph.  Or "bits and flipping".  They are all interconnected or else not part of "this universe".

What looks like spatial space emerges from relative delay in the flipping.  It wasn't there to begin with and isn't there now.

To make some "event" there is differential in a relation between a this and a that.  In bits, these flipping bits interact with those flipping bits.  Accepting there is "always an entanglement expression to be found" from QM we can imagine "mass" to be a combination of total number of bits and total oomph of flipping.  The flippingness is necessarily some tax, allow, exclude, wait state, etc., in the adjaceny and looks like "force", this flippingness seems to dance like a sprite and has some "gravitational" attraction to that one.  Again, we can plot using only the relative delay pen.  

As any "this" attempts to interact with any "that" and noting that there is no information realm DISCONNECT ever, "this" was just here, and now it is trying to be over there and interact with "that" which itself just came from somewhere...

Since the chain has no broken link, what may appear "retro-causal" in a spatial context, is simply the unitary transform in the information realm.  ( The hamiltonian is applied to the states ) but, given some freedom in hamiltonians, then portions of states compete to be the dominant state of a state and if this changes from the view of "the big hamiltonian" then things will look funky when plotted by relative delay into a "spatial space" result.

It wasn't "retrocausal" unless you believe in spatial space as some fundamental.

It was just fine in information footing, multi-process shared RAM for example, with no built in semaphore lock.

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:44 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

You seem to believe MWI is a non-local theory,

​I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

It's actually a trinary choice between locality, realism and counterfactual definiteness. See Q12 on the Many-Worlds FAQ: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism

 

 

​> ​

MWI is local and does not contain FTL influences.

I hope that's wrong because if its not them t

hen MWI would be dead wrong. If something doesn't match experiment then that's the end of the matter, there is no appeal its 

​just not right.

Bell did not disprove locality. You can still have locality and realism, so long as experiments can have more than one outcome. See my description of the EPR experiment in the MWI frame above.

Please read these sources and provide arguments if you disagree with them rather than repeat he same lines we have all seen from you a dozen times before.

Jason

[LizR]

Actually it's a 4-way choice, because retrocausality at the quantum level can explain Bell's inequality, as Bell himself worked out.

Unless that comes under one of the other headings?

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:43:35PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> Actually it's a 4-way choice, because retrocausality at the quantum level
> can explain Bell's inequality, as Bell himself worked out.
>
> Unless that comes under one of the other headings?

Retrocausality would be equivalent to FTL signalling, ie violating
locality. A message travelling faster than light will appear as a
signal travelling backwards in time in some reference frame.


--

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

[Allen Francom]

... if you take spatial space as being fundamental ...

Allow that much of an addition pls.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

snips

Hi Jason,

To this end, perhaps you can see my motivation now, physical MWI is a no go,

What is the alternative you subscribe to? Is it more like the many-minds interpretation? Infinite observers which differentiate from each other as they learn new information? I have not followed the reasoning that shows why MWI is unworkable.

 

as well as the spatial space and for the same fundamental reason.

If it acts like space, is it not space? This reminds be a bit of the people who say because all information about the universe could fit as some encoding on the surface of the sphere containing the universe, then we are actually living in a hologram. Maybe that is another way of looking at things, but perhaps both are valid mathematically.

 

If I am to "code" a foundation for physics then it must obey the rules and play with some finite or at least countable resource(s).

Resources like energy, time, and hardware are only relevant to the operation of our physical instantiations/approximations of Turing machines. No one would argue that "2 + 2 = 4" only because of the physical operation of someone who has taken two rocks and from one bucket, and dumped them into another bucket containing 2 rocks yielding a bucket containing 4 rocks. By the same measure, electricity is not required for the computational relations that exist within arithmetic to be true. Electricity is only required if we want to run physical computers that instantiate those relations in a physical medium.

 

If I give you 4 points but I do not specify a space, I just say they each have a unique identity, and I say they all "have a pointer" to each other but I do not say this in geometric terms, you can then imagine a communication network that has already the same "information content" as a 3D+t "spacetime" without invoking any caveman notion of such.

The volume is "there" but yet it is not physically real...  ;)

Voila.  That's what I want first, from everybody.

You could say the space in some virtual world is not real space because it is just all numerical values in the registers of some computers memory that interact through some well-defined way, but is that really relevant when the aim is to describe those interactions? Unless your claim that space is not physically real yields predictions different from those would arise if space were physically real, what is the motivation for making such a claim?

Jason

 

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

That approach is near and dear to my heart actually.

We have enough "requirements document" to go ahead and fashion a running model and then try to make the two meet in the middle and work out any kinks at BOTH ends.

Sure.

In order for me to try that, I need a couple things still.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's what I was saying

Beyond those bounds it could be anything, and there can be an infinite number of ways to make a consistent unvierse, monkeys, typewriters, math, video game... and for us, there is no way to choose.  It is "beyond the event horizon" so to speak.

That's why I mentioned "computational equivalence" - whatever it is we cannot constrain the computational equivalence to anything else.

So, let's finish investigating our own sandbox.

;)

All computational systems are equivalent, and you can describe then in many ways. That said, any system capable of describing and accounting for the existence of all computations is a legitimate TOE. Why not start with the simplest and see what other predictions we can confirm from it? I'm not satisfied by explanations that draw the line at the physical reality we see and assume further progress beyond that is impossible.

Jason

[Allen Francom]

Ah, good...

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

snips

Hi Jason,

To this end, perhaps you can see my motivation now, physical MWI is a no go,

What is the alternative you subscribe to? Is it more like the many-minds interpretation? Infinite observers which differentiate from each other as they learn new information? I have not followed the reasoning that shows why MWI is unworkable.

I don't think interpretation is in order at all.  "QM is capable of providing its own".

That said, I thought we were both interesting in going from the ground up now...

 

 

as well as the spatial space and for the same fundamental reason.

If it acts like space, is it not space? This reminds be a bit of the people who say because all information about the universe could fit as some encoding on the surface of the sphere containing the universe, then we are actually living in a hologram. Maybe that is another way of looking at things, but perhaps both are valid mathematically.

What does space act like if it isn't even there ?  It is extraneous.

 

 

If I am to "code" a foundation for physics then it must obey the rules and play with some finite or at least countable resource(s).

Resources like energy, time, and hardware are only relevant to the operation of our physical instantiations/approximations of Turing machines. No one would argue that "2 + 2 = 4" only because of the physical operation of someone who has taken two rocks and from one bucket, and dumped them into another bucket containing 2 rocks yielding a bucket containing 4 rocks. By the same measure, electricity is not required for the computational relations that exist within arithmetic to be true. Electricity is only required if we want to run physical computers that instantiate those relations in a physical medium.

Same point as Bruno tries to make.  Something has to "run" the math... ;)  electricity or not.  One form of expression is as good as any other provided it is "universal".

 

 

If I give you 4 points but I do not specify a space, I just say they each have a unique identity, and I say they all "have a pointer" to each other but I do not say this in geometric terms, you can then imagine a communication network that has already the same "information content" as a 3D+t "spacetime" without invoking any caveman notion of such.

The volume is "there" but yet it is not physically real...  ;)

Voila.  That's what I want first, from everybody.

You could say the space in some virtual world is not real space because it is just all numerical values in the registers of some computers memory that interact through some well-defined way, but is that really relevant when the aim is to describe those interactions? Unless your claim that space is not physically real yields predictions different from those would arise if space were physically real, what is the motivation for making such a claim?

It is not necessary to encode spatial space at all, and it appears to be the root of all evil.  A magic separation, the origin of the idea of "pure isolation", etc.,

When today we have quantum correlation, entanglement relativity and the utter lack of ability to NOT acquire a valid entanglement expression throughout any choice of decomposition.

ala a "time only" is the only ingredient necessary to yield any perceived spatial space for any and all purposes.

That is the motivation for making such a claim.  It is simply a wrong-minded thing to begin with.  Something that Einstein completely did away with.  Almost everyone misses that, completely, like dogmatic monks of a backward religion.  Even Einstein himself forgets what he had done and reverts to "spooky action at a distance" and fails to apply it in his new invention "spacetime" which is neither space nor time nor a combination of those "individual" concepts.  It is a name.  Spacetime however is something rather different, it is a statement of what is fundamentally only time-like relation as well as a statement of "no-disconnect" in fundamental information terms.

My motivation is "hey, wake up", and I can't pull that punch, I have to deliver it straight on.

[Allen Francom]

So you see...

WE have to forgive Einstein for failing to stick to his own new invention, where he begged forgiveness from Newton.

It has been long enough, we need to get this over with.

You cannot use "space" and you cannot use "time".

You can employ only "space-LIKE" and "time-LIKE" and for both you must have a common root which is some dynamic ingredient ( to satisfy the "time" arguing folk )

If anybody has a problem with that, rest assured, your problem is a big one and you need to get over it right quick.

;)

Spatial Space by Einstein IS NOT FUNDAMENTAL

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah, good...

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

snips

Hi Jason,

To this end, perhaps you can see my motivation now, physical MWI is a no go,

What is the alternative you subscribe to? Is it more like the many-minds interpretation? Infinite observers which differentiate from each other as they learn new information? I have not followed the reasoning that shows why MWI is unworkable.

I don't think interpretation is in order at all.  "QM is capable of providing its own".

I agree. But if we take the equations of QM literally and believe that they apply at all times, the result is MWI.

 

That said, I thought we were both interesting in going from the ground up now...

Sure.

 

 

 

as well as the spatial space and for the same fundamental reason.

If it acts like space, is it not space? This reminds be a bit of the people who say because all information about the universe could fit as some encoding on the surface of the sphere containing the universe, then we are actually living in a hologram. Maybe that is another way of looking at things, but perhaps both are valid mathematically.

What does space act like if it isn't even there ?  It is extraneous.

The possible interactions between particles and the times in which they interact appear bounded by properties of agreement of coordinates in 4 dimensions and distances within 4 dimensions.

 

 

 

If I am to "code" a foundation for physics then it must obey the rules and play with some finite or at least countable resource(s).

Resources like energy, time, and hardware are only relevant to the operation of our physical instantiations/approximations of Turing machines. No one would argue that "2 + 2 = 4" only because of the physical operation of someone who has taken two rocks and from one bucket, and dumped them into another bucket containing 2 rocks yielding a bucket containing 4 rocks. By the same measure, electricity is not required for the computational relations that exist within arithmetic to be true. Electricity is only required if we want to run physical computers that instantiate those relations in a physical medium.

Same point as Bruno tries to make.  Something has to "run" the math... ;)  electricity or not.  One form of expression is as good as any other provided it is "universal".

Isn't this being a bit one-sided?

Physics can run itself, but objects in math cannot.

A physical universe can exist independently of anything else, but a mathematical object cannot.

A physical computation can result in consciousness, a mathematical computation results in nothing.

From where does such bias originate?

 

 

 

If I give you 4 points but I do not specify a space, I just say they each have a unique identity, and I say they all "have a pointer" to each other but I do not say this in geometric terms, you can then imagine a communication network that has already the same "information content" as a 3D+t "spacetime" without invoking any caveman notion of such.

The volume is "there" but yet it is not physically real...  ;)

Voila.  That's what I want first, from everybody.

You could say the space in some virtual world is not real space because it is just all numerical values in the registers of some computers memory that interact through some well-defined way, but is that really relevant when the aim is to describe those interactions? Unless your claim that space is not physically real yields predictions different from those would arise if space were physically real, what is the motivation for making such a claim?

It is not necessary to encode spatial space at all, and it appears to be the root of all evil.  A magic separation, the origin of the idea of "pure isolation", etc.,

When today we have quantum correlation, entanglement relativity and the utter lack of ability to NOT acquire a valid entanglement expression throughout any choice of decomposition.

ala a "time only" is the only ingredient necessary to yield any perceived spatial space for any and all purposes.

With only time, you can make no sense of speed. Time = Distance / Speed. Speed = Distance / Time. Distance = Time * Speed. If you say we can dispense with distance because time is all we need be concerned with, then how do you distinguish two objects, one that is 1 mile away and traveling at 1 mph toward you, and one that is 2 miles away and traveling at 2 mph toward you? These both have the same "arrival time", but it seems there are other things about them that a "time only" approach does not capture.

 

That is the motivation for making such a claim.  It is simply a wrong-minded thing to begin with.  Something that Einstein completely did away with.  Almost everyone misses that, completely, like dogmatic monks of a backward religion.  Even Einstein himself forgets what he had done and reverts to "spooky action at a distance"

Einstein never accepted spooky action at a distance.

 

and fails to apply it in his new invention "spacetime" which is neither space nor time nor a combination of those "individual" concepts.  It is a name.  Spacetime however is something rather different, it is a statement of what is fundamentally only time-like relation as well as a statement of "no-disconnect" in fundamental information terms.

My motivation is "hey, wake up", and I can't pull that punch, I have to deliver it straight on.

I think you might appreciate the site: http://www.relativitysimplified.com/ and the book "Relativity Visualized". It explains that the proper speed of all things is the speed of light. When an object appears to be at rest, it is traveling through the time dimension at the speed of light.

Jason

[Allen Francom]

Well, like I was saying, re: MWI - no

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6424

Not physically

If you look at the names at the top of the paper I am not a neophyte in this realm.

"Many Minds" is fine, and 2WI so to speak is fine.

Einstein never accepted spooky action at a distance exactly.  He never let go of spatial space in favor of Spacetime.  I think it is an error of history of gross proportion that the NAME of "spacetime" came out as it did.  People automatically via hypnosis think they know what to assume incorrectly about it.

He could have called it "BobAndAliceWays" and we would be better off today for it.

I will look at the link you provided.  Meanwhile, see several publications of Roger Anderton re: relativity.

See if you can find him online and engage in this discussion.

[Allen Francom]

Here, heaven forbid you try to tell a video game that it cannot run

[Allen Francom]

This one is a fascinating discussion of its own:

"The possible interactions between particles and the times in which
they interact appear bounded by properties of agreement of coordinates
in 4 dimensions and distances within 4 dimensions."

let's not use "dimensions" in the classical sense at all, starting
from the bottom and working up. I tried to make that clear with an
information model and something of a "pointer basis". This is not
declared in any of the familiar "dimensions".

[Allen Francom]

"
Isn't this being a bit one-sided?
Physics can run itself, but objects in math cannot.
A physical universe can exist independently of anything else, but a
mathematical object cannot.
A physical computation can result in consciousness, a mathematical
computation results in nothing.

From where does such bias originate?
"

This is where EITHER we agree we can design bottom up or we cannot

[LizR]

With respect, I disagree (however this is a common mistake!). Retrocausality at the quantum level simply means that the future state of a quantum object affects the past state of another quantum object when these states are linked by quantum signalling (e.g. by the state of a photon passing between them). It is very important to realise that nothing travels FTL in any reference frame, otherwise one starts to view retrocausality as something "magical" or spooky when in fact it's just saying that physics is indifferent to the direction of time at the quantum level (as, in practice, appears to be the case).

However this does allow for various things that appear spooky to people whose experience is of a one-way entropy gradient. It allows correlations between measuring apparatuses and an emitter, for example, which gives the appearance of FTL signalling (as in EPR) - we couldn't do the same thing except via FTL signals, working on the macroscopic level - but that limitation doesn't apply to quantum objects.

Of course this assumes no one discovers an intrinsic arrow of time built into the laws of physics. As I mentioned in my previous post, kaon decay and gravitational collapse are two possible intrinsic arrows - but it's hard to see how either of these affect the matter in 99.999% of the universe, including us and almost all the physics experiments we do.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

Why, are there any known FTL influences?

​I don't know why, nobody knows why there are FTL influences.​

 

​> ​

I can't think of any

​I can.​

 

​  John K Clark​

[John Clark]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

​> ​

I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

It's actually a trinary choice between locality, realism and counterfactual definiteness.

"​Realism" is just another (and in my opinion better) term for the more pompous "

counterfactual definiteness

​". And you forgot determinism.

​> ​

Bell did not disprove locality.

​Bell did not prove or disprove anything about physics, he proved something about logic. Bell proved that if a certain mathematical inequality was violated in a certain experiment that Bell thought up then in any successful physical explanation of how physics works AT LEAST one of the following three things must be untrue:

1) Locality

2) Determinism

3) Realism

Bell wasn't an experimentalist, he didn't perform the difficult experiment and so he didn't know if his inequality was violated or not, for him it was a thought experiment. But experimental science advanced in the decades after Bell wrote his paper and the thought experiment became a real experiment, and so today we do know. There can no longer be any doubt about it, Bell's inequality is indeed violated. I have no doubt that you and many members of this list would prefer that all 3 attributes be true, I would too, but apparently the universe does not share our taste on this subject.  

 

​> ​

You can still have locality and realism, so long as experiments can have more than one outcome.

​Yes, and I can't think of a better way to say determinism is untrue.

 John K Clark 

[John Clark]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:43 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

Actually it's a 4-way choice, because retrocausality at the quantum level can explain Bell's inequality, as Bell himself worked out.

 

Retrocausality

​ ​

is about as non-local as you can get.

 John K Clark

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Oct 2015, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity.  I don't think it is possible to reconcile collapse and special relativity.

 

​Actually it does violate special relativity, but not the more nuanced ​improved theory of General Relativity that Einstein discovered 10 years after special relativity. And from experimental observations there can no longer be any doubt, FTL influences do exist.

Locally. Not in the multi-structure. I have not yet seen any convincing proof of a physical non local effect in the multiverse. Bell's violation entails physical FTL influence only when we assume one universe. If not, all the violation so far can be explained by the local interaction in each branch of the waves.

To me, the Bell's inequality are just wonderful evidences that physics below our substitution level is based on a statistics on parallel computations. It saves mechanism from solipisisme: there is a notion of first person plural.

And there are other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics but Many Worlds is my favorite because although weird it is in my opinion less weird than the alternatives.  

​> ​

Some disagree by saying no useful information can be transmitted by the collapse, but this misses the point.

​I think that is exactly the point, matter energy and information ​can not travel faster than light but influences can and do. 

I would be you, I would express myself by saying "bullshit", but frankly, "influence", come on. 

Bruno

 

​And General Relativity says that ​

matter energy and information

​ must travel through space slower than light but space itself can move at any speed. That's why every cosmologist ​alive thinks that galaxies exist beyond our observational horizon but we can never see them because they are moving away from us faster than light, or rather the space between us and them is expanding faster than light; and General Relativity is perfectly OK with that. 

 John K Clark   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Oct 2015, at 22:44, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

You seem to believe MWI is a non-local theory,

​I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

Here realism means "one world". It is a form on non realism with respect to the universal wave.

 

​> ​

MWI is local and does not contain FTL influences.

I hope that's wrong because if its not them t

hen MWI would be dead wrong. If something doesn't match experiment then that's the end of the matter, there is no appeal its 

​just not right.

I guess Jason will explain to you. I think we have already discuss this. the experience we do verify only an apparent, but measurable local (in our branch) non locality. The simple FPI on the quantum superpositions, in any base, gives the right account of the violation of Bell's inequality, without introducing any spooky influence at a distance. Our mind is distributed on the phase space, but that happens also with computationalism. 

Think about quantum teleportation; when Alice send his two classical bits, it is only to share the first person plural frame with Bob. That only makes Bob retrieving the state which has been sent. Everyting can be explained in a deterministic local way, in each relative branching. But in some books, they interpret wrongly the singlet states by fixing one base, which can lead to error.

Bruno

  John K Clark  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:48 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

​> ​

I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

It's actually a trinary choice between locality, realism and counterfactual definiteness.

"​Realism" is just another (and in my opinion better) term for the more pompous "

counterfactual definiteness

​". And you forgot determinism.

​> ​

Bell did not disprove locality.

​Bell did not prove or disprove anything about physics, he proved something about logic. Bell proved that if a certain mathematical inequality was violated in a certain experiment that Bell thought up then in any successful physical explanation of how physics works AT LEAST one of the following three things must be untrue:

1) Locality

2) Determinism

3) Realism

Realism is something else. CI gives up realism, MWI preserves it. Non real theories have to explain how the universe popped into existence when the first conscious being was born into it and what happens to the moon when no one is looking at it. These are non issues for MWI.

Counterfactual Definiteness sounds pompous I agree, but so far there is no common word to express what it means, because the concept is so alien to ordinary experience. It is counterfactual definiteness that MWI gives up. The concept was so alien, it never occurred to the EPR authors that they were assuming it.

 

Bell wasn't an experimentalist, he didn't perform the difficult experiment and so he didn't know if his inequality was violated or not, for him it was a thought experiment. But experimental science advanced in the decades after Bell wrote his paper and the thought experiment became a real experiment, and so today we do know. There can no longer be any doubt about it, Bell's inequality is indeed violated. I have no doubt that you and many members of this list would prefer that all 3 attributes be true, I would too, but apparently the universe does not share our taste on this subject.  

We all know it was violated, which provided further confirmation for MWI (at least if you believe in locality).

 

 

​> ​

You can still have locality and realism, so long as experiments can have more than one outcome.

​Yes, and I can't think of a better way to say determinism is untrue.

Ahh so now you accept that the many outcomes leads to first person inderminancy?

Note: The inderminancy is only in the first person view. There are no random variables in the Schrodinger equation.

 

Jason

[LizR]

I was hoping for a sensible answer. Try parsing my question correctly (the comma is a clue) then answering it, rather than something else.

And if you can think of some FTL influences, what are they? I don't know of any that have been demonstrated to exist. Just saying "I can" isn't an answer.

Thank you in advance for behaving like a grown up this time.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Oct 2015, at 17:48, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

​> ​

I do. ​And I also believe that to be consistent with observation any correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics must have AT LEAST one of the following must be false: locality or determinism or realism.   

It's actually a trinary choice between locality, realism and counterfactual definiteness.

"​Realism" is just another (and in my opinion better) term for the more pompous "

counterfactual definiteness

​". And you forgot determinism.

​> ​

Bell did not disprove locality.

​Bell did not prove or disprove anything about physics, he proved something about logic. Bell proved that if a certain mathematical inequality was violated in a certain experiment that Bell thought up then in any successful physical explanation of how physics works AT LEAST one of the following three things must be untrue:

1) Locality

2) Determinism

3) Realism

"Realism" in this context means "one world", I think. In that case what you say is correct.

But once admitting many worlds, the non locality, like the indeterminacy, is explained as first person appearances in a completely local and deterministic context. 

That is not entirely obvious, but good reason have been given by Everett already, then Tipler, then Deutsch and Hayden.

A real physical FTL, even, if it does not transmit information, seems to me inconsistent with relativity (if not with logic, but that is not my point here).

Bell wasn't an experimentalist, he didn't perform the difficult experiment and so he didn't know if his inequality was violated or not, for him it was a thought experiment. 

Bell said he hoped and believed that his inequality would not been violated. Bell tended to believe in hidden variables, and even in non-local hidden variable after the first evidences that the inequality was violated. He was not quite a "many-worlders".

But experimental science advanced in the decades after Bell wrote his paper and the thought experiment became a real experiment, and so today we do know. There can no longer be any doubt about it, Bell's inequality is indeed violated. I have no doubt that you and many members of this list would prefer that all 3 attributes be true, I would too, but apparently the universe does not share our taste on this subject.  

The experimental fact that Bell's inequality are violated shows that there are apparent non-local influence in our branch of the wave, determined by our choice of measuring apparatus. But in the multiverse, there is physical influence going quicker that light. If you believe they still are, it is up to you to explain why and where. 

I have once believed I could refute Deustch and Hayden, but since then, I have understood that the argument was remaining on a wrong interpretation of the singlet state. "up up + down down"  must be interpreted in all bases: it does not represent a set worlds where the particles are up + the one where the particles are down, but as a set of words where the particles are correlated for all choice of complementary base. In that case, quantum teleportation can be explained without any FTL, and each time people present argument that the violation of Bell's inequality entails real physical FTL in our branch, I can usually find where the argument rest on a too naive interpretation of the relative state in Everett many-worlds.

Now, I could change my mind if you succeed in showing a 3p FTL, in one branch, by showing it follows from the BI violation.  I see only 1p plural FTL.

Bruno

PS With comp, the whole of physics becomes 1p plural, so of course, that is not shocking. 

 

​> ​

You can still have locality and realism, so long as experiments can have more than one outcome.

​Yes, and I can't think of a better way to say determinism is untrue.

 John K Clark 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

​>

​>>​

​

In my opinion any FTL influence would violate special relativity.  I don't think it is possible to reconcile collapse and special relativity.

 

​

​>> ​

Actually it does violate special relativity, but not the more nuanced ​improved theory of General Relativity that Einstein discovered 10 years after special relativity. And from experimental observations there can no longer be any doubt, FTL influences do exist.

​> ​

Locally.

​Yes locally. The influences can't be local.​

 

​> ​

I have not yet seen any convincing proof of a physical non local effect in the multiverse.

​Another universe is pretty damn non local, and before I start looking for it I need to know what  "​non local effect in the multiverse" means.

 

​> ​

Bell's violation entails physical FTL influence only when we assume one universe.

​A theory can be free of ​FTL influences and still be consistent with experiment, but then the theory would have to be non-deterministic or non-realistic. Einstein wanted the universe to have all 3 attributes but he died 10 years before Bell invented his inequality and 30 years before it became known through experiment that Bell's inequality was violated. If Einstein had known of this I think he would have abandoned determinism, the next to go would be locality, and the one he would have been most reluctant to give up would be realism. And I would be of the same opinion as Einstein on this.  

 John K Clark 

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

​Another universe is pretty damn non local,

Um, no. Standard single-Photon double-slit experiment for instance. Many universes (little-p photons) interfering with each other. Completely local (no FTL signaling, and all the universes occupy the same spacetime region).

--

Gary

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

​>>​

​Bell did not prove or disprove anything about physics, he proved something about logic. Bell proved that if a certain mathematical inequality was violated in a certain experiment that Bell thought up then in any successful physical explanation of how physics works AT LEAST one of the following three things must be untrue:

1) Locality

2) Determinism

3) Realism

​> ​

Realism is something else. CI gives up realism, MWI preserves it.

​Yes I agree, that's why I don't like the Copenhagen Interpretation, giving up realism should be a last resort not the first. I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is almost certainly wrong and the MWI is less wrong and maybe even correct.

Counterfactual Definiteness sounds pompous I agree, but so far there is no common word to express what it means,

​I prefer "realism" but there is no disputing matters of taste. ​

 

​> ​

It is counterfactual definiteness that MWI gives up.

​

If it did I wouldn't be a MWI fan.

​ ​

Counterfactual

​ ​

definiteness

​ ​

(or realism) means that

​ ​

objects

​ ​

have properties

​ ​

even when they have not been observed. Copenhagen

​ disagrees so it must explain exactly what a observation is and that means it must explain exactly what consciousness is; the MWI doesn't need to get into any of that because conscious observers have nothing to do with it except they get duplicated when the universe splits just like everything else. MWI says that conscious stuff and nonconscious stuff obey the same laws of physics,

Copenhagen

​ says they do not.

 

​> ​

You can still have locality and realism, so long as experiments can have more than one outcome.

​

​>> ​

Yes, and I can't think of a better way to say determinism is untrue.

​> ​

Ahh so now you accept that the many outcomes leads to first person inderminancy?

 

 

​Well duh! ​

​If the universe is indeterminate is it really a great intellectual achievement to conclude that I (the first person) will not always know what is going to happen next? How could it possibly be otherwise if things are indeterminate?   ​

​ John K Clark​

 

 

​> ​

There are no random variables in the Schrodinger equation.

​Irrelevant. Like  lines of Latitude and Longitude what the​

 Schrodinger equation

​ describes is just a tool for calculation not something in the physical world. If you like you could ignore

Schrodinger equation

​ and use Heisenberg's matrices instead and you'd get exactly the same answer.  

 John K Clark ​

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

And if you can think of some FTL influences, what are they?

​Entanglement.

 John K Clark ​

 

 

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:06 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

It is counterfactual definiteness that MWI gives up.

​

If it did I wouldn't be a MWI fan.

​ ​

Counterfactual

​ ​

definiteness

​ ​

(or realism) means that

​ ​

objects

​ ​

have properties

​ ​

even when they have not been observed.

OK, given that definition (based on observation, whatever that is), what is your preferred term for what MWI does give up? I.e. what's your term for the fact that a given experiment has more than one actual outcome? Most people, I think, use either "realism" or "CFD" for this concept. "Determinism" is an option, but usually (at least in philosophy circles) that means everything has a cause, as opposed to random uncaused events.

Myself, I prefer the term "realism" even though it's a bit loaded.

--

Gary

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

And if you can think of some FTL influences, what are they?

​Entanglement.

Really??  You think entanglement requires FTL? I thought you were an MWI fan (from your prev email). With MWI, entanglement happens perfectly well without any FTL signaling.

 

--

Gary

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> wrote:

​

​> ​

Counterfactual

​ ​

definiteness

​ ​

(or realism) means that

​ ​

objects

​ ​

have properties

​ ​

even when they have not been observed.

OK, given that definition (based on observation, whatever that is), what is your preferred term for what MWI does give up?

Locality.

 

​> ​

 what's your term for the fact that a given experiment has more than one actual outcome?

​Nondeterminism. ​

 

 

​> ​

"Determinism" is an option, but usually (at least in philosophy circles) that means everything has a cause, as opposed to random uncaused events.

​If the same "cause" can make 2 different changes to the same exact thing then how is causality different from randomness?  ​

​ John K Clark​

[Quentin Anciaux]

2015-10-27 17:23 GMT+01:00 Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com>:

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

And if you can think of some FTL influences, what are they?

​Entanglement.

Really??  You think entanglement requires FTL? I thought you were an MWI fan

He's not, he's "I'm always right" fan... and he can twist anything to this end... you should know it by now.

 

(from your prev email). With MWI, entanglement happens perfectly well without any FTL signaling.

 

--

Gary

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> wrote:

​>

​>>​

​

And if you can think of some FTL influences, what are they?

​

​>> ​

Entanglement.

​> ​

Really?? 

​Yes really. ​

 

 

​> ​

You think entanglement requires FTL?

Obviously

​ it requires FTL influences.​

 

​> ​

I thought you were an MWI fan

​I am.​

 

​> ​

With MWI, entanglement happens perfectly well without any FTL signaling.

​I agree. There is not the slightest bit of experimental evidence that FTL signaling exists, but there is overwhelming experimental evidence that FTL influences exist.

  John K Clark

[Allen Francom]

Wait

What ?

Could somebody point me to the measurement process which shows that
some other W shows up in the same spatial space ?

This does not sound quite right. It would be in "our" spatial space
and then it is "still here" in "this universe" and "did not branch"
and we'd have instead a mess of duplicate resources...

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

[LizR]

And what physically moves FTL in entanglement?

--

[LizR]

Also with retrocausality. FTL is an ASSUMPTION based on various factors (an obvious one is no backwards causation, as per Bell)

--

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Oct 2015, at 17:21, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Allen Francom <light...@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess nobody read Miroljub's paper regarding the physical branching is not possible nowadays...

Or maybe we read it and thought it was incorrect or incoherent? Please resend a link. But I'm afraid I'm not ready to abandon space altogether.

And that feeling explains perhaps a common reluctance to appreciate the consequence of computationalism, which revived Pythagoras and Neoplatonism.

But if we take the computationalist hypothesis, it is a theorem (in usual mathematics) that the model of arithmetic emulates all possible subjective experiences. The models of arithmetic contain a block mindscape.

It makes space, and time, into a creation of the mind, like with Kant, and some Neopythagoreans and neoplatonists. It makes actually the whole of physics, time included, into the science of the average dreams of the universal machine, and this is a way making that testable, and indeed, it gives the quantum logic, and the many-worlds, or more exactly the many dreams with the right shape for the coherence conditions necessary for the dreams to be sharable among locally different universal machine/number. The Church-Turing thesis entirely rehabilitate the Pythagorean metaphysics/theology, without the pythagorean superstitions (probably!).

I will make a little "piece of mathematical theology" on the everything-list, as I have realized recently when doing a course that people confused easily morphism of theories and representation theorem (both in physics and logic). I talked about this some times ago with Stephen Paul King.

Physics, when made into a theology, with some ontological commitment in some "primary matter" (usually NOT done by most theoretical physicists) fails on consciousness and person, as people as different as french Sade and Lamettrie, and the Churchland and Dennett illustrates.

Bruno

--

Gary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Allen Francom]

Hi Bruno,

It is a very unfortunate situation that physics has evolved as it has
in this regard. The "programs" were all coded taking a given "monitor
and resolution" for granted, not realizing they still run if you
unplug the monitor. That is, everything was derived taking an x,y,z
basis and implied geometry. If ever I can gain traction with anyone
regarding "principle of computational equivalence" it often helps.

The other "deep thought" is Maths are just constraints, typically, and
not expressions of any "actual mechanics". - yet

So indeed, there is a lot of "ooo..." and "ahh..." whenever somebody
comes up with a formulation outside of the caveman's "throw rock, hit
bird, eat dinner". There seems to be generally missing some right
kind of sugar combined with some right kind of ephedrine to power
enough minds to do their own thinking.

"ugh, how rock hit bird ? stomach growling... more fire... just do
what book say..."

No offense anyone, unless everyone, self included. How the brain
works... it does everything in its power to not have to burn sugar.

Only once do we spend the energy to LEARN how to ride a bike, and we
never ever do it again... and I think we do this to be able to get
away from mom's house and meet our friends at the candy store... (
more sugar ) There's just not enough visceral motivation. "Do this
or we're all going to die !"

We have only 5 billion years to get out of here before it is game over
for sure ;)

Back to work ! Fix something ! Hurry !

"Less rock, more bird"

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:52:35AM -0500, Allen Francom wrote:
>
> We have only 5 billion years to get out of here before it is game over
> for sure ;)

I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but life will be pretty
uncomfortable, if not impossible, only 1 billion years from now.

Cheers

>
> Back to work ! Fix something ! Hurry !
>
> "Less rock, more bird"

[LizR]

Possibly half that, if I remember correctly. We're currently about half way from the PreCambrian Explosion to the Big Bake Off - by one billion years, I believe, the Earth will be entirely outside the Sun's habitable zone and the oceans will be boiling..

(However, Mars might be quite nice by then, if we can get our cylinders and tripods over there.)

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:19 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

And what physically moves FTL in entanglement?

​As I have said many many times, matter and energy and information can NOT move FTL, ​but there is no longer the slightest doubt that influences can and do. It's been proven experimentally that some quantum effects propagate much faster than light, probably instantly, and for unlimited distances. One system can influence another system on the other side of the universe with little or no delay, but it carries no information because the receiving system just changes from one apparently random mode to another, it's only when you compare the two systems (and that can only be done at light speed or less) does the correspondence between the two systems become obvious. The 2 random modes have equal energy so energy is not transferred either.

 John K Clark

[Quentin Anciaux]

2015-10-30 18:13 GMT+01:00 John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:19 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

And what physically moves FTL in entanglement?

​As I have said many many times, matter and energy and information can NOT move FTL, ​but there is no longer the slightest doubt that influences can and do. It's been proven experimentally that some quantum effects propagate much faster than light, probably instantly, and for unlimited distances. One system can influence another system on the other side of the universe with little or no delay, but it carries no information because the receiving system just changes from one apparently random mode to another, it's only when you compare the two systems (and that can only be done at light speed or less)

So how do you know the "influence" was FTL ? How are you sure about it ? the only way to confirm the correlation is to compare it... and the comparison, doesn't tell you anything about influences FTL... it tells you only that upon comparison, there is a correlation.

 

does the correspondence between the two systems become obvious. The 2 random modes have equal energy so energy is not transferred either.

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:13 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

matter and energy and information can NOT move FTL, ​but there is no longer the slightest doubt that influences can and do

What's an "influence"? (I'm serious.) How do you detect them? Do they obey rules of some kind?

--

Gary

[Allen Francom]

More and more there are notions of 'wave packet edge detection" at c+ and while the fallback seems always that the confirmation can only happen with c based 'information', there is the outstanding notion of pulsing the edge detection which somehow does not qualify as 'the information'  ;)

Wait a bit, let's see what shakes out with the fiber people.  It has been only about 5 years.  Give 'em another 5.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

​>> ​

As I have said many many times, matter and energy and information can NOT move FTL, ​but there is no longer the slightest doubt that influences can and do. It's been proven experimentally that some quantum effects propagate much faster than light, probably instantly, and for unlimited distances. One system can influence another system on the other side of the universe with little or no delay, but it carries no information because the receiving system just changes from one apparently random mode to another, it's only when you compare the two systems (and that can only be done at light speed or less)

​> ​

So how do you know the "influence" was FTL ?

​You and I are 10 light years away but we are not moving with respect to one another and neither of us is in a gravitational field so we can agree on what is simultaneous and can synchronize our clocks. At the same time we both start flipping our coins and we keep a record of how the flips came out with a timestamp on each flip. We both flip a billion times. For both of us the sequence of heads and tails we get seems completely random with no pattern. You then get into your spaceship to visit me moving at 99.9% the speed of light. 10 years later we meet and compare our records. We now discover that your apparently random sequence of heads and tails and my apparently random sequence of heads and tails were exactly the same and they happened at exactly the same time, although we didn't know that until 10 years later. It can't be used to send a message because the phenomenon only changes one apparently random sequence to another apparently random sequence, but obviously something was influencing the 2 coins faster than light even if that fact can only be verified at the speed of light or less.

This isn't just a thought experiment it's actually been done, the distance was less than 10 light years and they used photons instead of coins and a fibre optic cable instead of a spaceship but it's the same basic idea.      

 

​> ​

 the only way to confirm the correlation is to compare it

​Yes, and that can not be done FTL.

 

​> ​

and the comparison, doesn't tell you anything about influences FTL... it tells you only that upon comparison, there is a correlation.

​If we each flip our coins ​

 

​a billion times and we both get the same sequence of heads and tails then there is one chance in 2^10^9 ( I won't write this number in conventional notation because it's 301,029,996 digits long 

) that nothing is influencing the 2 coins FTL and it's all just a big coincidence. ​By comparison the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is only 79 digits long.

 John K Clark

[Quentin Anciaux]

There is MWI... and no FTL.

 

and it's all just a big coincidence. ​By comparison the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is only 79 digits long.

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Quentin Anciaux]

2015-10-30 21:11 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com>:

2015-10-30 21:08 GMT+01:00 John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

​>> ​

As I have said many many times, matter and energy and information can NOT move FTL, ​but there is no longer the slightest doubt that influences can and do. It's been proven experimentally that some quantum effects propagate much faster than light, probably instantly, and for unlimited distances. One system can influence another system on the other side of the universe with little or no delay, but it carries no information because the receiving system just changes from one apparently random mode to another, it's only when you compare the two systems (and that can only be done at light speed or less)

​> ​

So how do you know the "influence" was FTL ?

​You and I are 10 light years away but we are not moving with respect to one another and neither of us is in a gravitational field so we can agree on what is simultaneous and can synchronize our clocks. At the same time we both start flipping our coins and we keep a record of how the flips came out with a timestamp on each flip. We both flip a billion times. For both of us the sequence of heads and tails we get seems completely random with no pattern. You then get into your spaceship to visit me moving at 99.9% the speed of light. 10 years later we meet and compare our records. We now discover that your apparently random sequence of heads and tails and my apparently random sequence of heads and tails were exactly the same and they happened at exactly the same time, although we didn't know that until 10 years later. It can't be used to send a message because the phenomenon only changes one apparently random sequence to another apparently random sequence, but obviously something was influencing the 2 coins faster than light even if that fact can only be verified at the speed of light or less.

This isn't just a thought experiment it's actually been done, the distance was less than 10 light years and they used photons instead of coins and a fibre optic cable instead of a spaceship but it's the same basic idea.      

 

​> ​

 the only way to confirm the correlation is to compare it

​Yes, and that can not be done FTL.

 

​> ​

and the comparison, doesn't tell you anything about influences FTL... it tells you only that upon comparison, there is a correlation.

​If we each flip our coins ​

 

​a billion times and we both get the same sequence of heads and tails then there is one chance in 2^10^9 ( I won't write this number in conventional notation because it's 301,029,996 digits long 

) that nothing is influencing the 2 coins FTL

There is MWI... and no FTL.

 http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#epr

 

and it's all just a big coincidence. ​By comparison the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is only 79 digits long.

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:08 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

​If we each flip our coins ​

 

​a billion times and we both get the same sequence of heads and tails then there is one chance in 2^10^9 ( I won't write this number in conventional notation because it's 301,029,996 digits long 

) that nothing is influencing the 2 coins FTL and it's all just a big coincidence. ​By comparison the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is only 79 digits long.

Right. This is where hidden variable explanations came from (both sequences are derived from some hidden initially shared random seed). Bell's inequality disqualifies any such explanation, _in a single-valued universe_. MWI essentially restores the hidden variable idea -- it can just take on different values in different universes. In your case, each possible sequence, shared by you and your partner. As you make the flips, you're figuring out which of those universes you are (both) in. That's all it is. Nothing FTL or spooky about it.

--

Gary

[Allen Francom]

Ok, this is a fun one

Well, to a hammer everything looks like a nail also

If you have no actual mechanics codified and instead you constrain everything in a statistical framework, what do you expect ?

But let's extend the coin toss idea JUST A TINY LITTLE BIT

Let's say they don't stop flipping...  ( even when "you're not looking" )

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

"Klaatu barada nikto!"

light...@gmail.com

[LizR]

If matter and energy and information can't move FTL, then what are these "influences", physically?

[LizR]

The same EPR results can be obtained if you allow the future state of quantum systems to influence past ones - which I believe is what the physics says actually happens (there is no preferred time direction for the evolution of a physical system that I know of, with the exceptions I already noted).

Once you take out macroscopic effects like the arrangement of matter in the universe and only look at isolated quantum systems, you see exactly what you'd expect if the systems evolve indifferently to the direction of time. Hence forcing a system to a specific state at a later time causes a correlation with its earlier state, which forces a correlation a state that is at the later time spacelike-separated from the original influence (this is how entanglement works, in this view).

The win-win about this is that it actually requires no new physics, merely a willingness to accept all the implications of the existing physics. It also requires no spooky influences, no FTL, no hidden variables, no instantaneous collapse of wavefunctions -- in fact, nothing untoward. All it requires is that the future state of a system can influence its past state (via normal physics, i.e. the evolution of the wavefunction given the imposed boundary conditions).

[LizR]

I see that got a bit garbled, and you aren't allowed to go back and edit posts...so a quick recap.

Consider a system composed of two particles coming from the same source and moving widely apart. We measure the spin of one, say. We find a correlation with the spin of t'other. In the acausal view this works because the later measurements influence the earlier state of the emitter, constraining the states the overall system can take.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> wrote:

​

​>> ​

If we each flip our coins ​

 

​a billion times and we both get the same sequence of heads and tails then there is one chance in 2^10^9 ( I won't write this number in conventional notation because it's 301,029,996 digits long 

) that nothing is influencing the 2 coins FTL and it's all just a big coincidence. ​By comparison the number of atoms in the entire observable universe is only 79 digits long.

​> ​

Right. This is where hidden variable explanations came from (both sequences are derived from some hidden initially shared random seed). Bell's inequality disqualifies any such explanation,

​Yes.​

 

​> ​

_in a single-valued universe_. MWI essentially restores the hidden variable idea -- it can just take on different values in different universes. In your case, each possible sequence, shared by you and your partner. As you make the flips, you're figuring out which of those universes you are (both) in.

​But out of those

 2^10^9 

​ (10^10^8.476) universes I don't understand why you and I are in the particular universe where you and I just happened to have same sequence of heads and tails for a billion flips straight; after all a universe where our coin sequences differs is just as real a universe as the one (and only one!) universe where all the flips are identical. Well 

Ok maybe we just got RIDICULOUSLY lucky, but

​what ​

do

​you ​

expect would happen

​again ​

if we decided to repeat the experiment? 

​I would bet my life that if we repeated it the results would be the same and we'd get identical sequences again, but if your explanation is correct you should give odds of only one chance in ​

 2^10^9

​ of us getting the same sequence again after a billion flips. So let's do the experiment again and see who wins our bet!  I think there will be 

2^10^9 

​universes where a winner John Clark is a resident, but there will only be one universe where a winner 

Gary Oberbrunner

​ is a resident.​

​> ​

That's all it is. Nothing FTL or spooky about it.

Niels Bohr once said

​ "​

Anybody not shocked by quantum theory doesn't understand it

​". I find the MWI to be the least crazy interpretation around, but it's still pretty crazy and I don't think anything will ever get rid of all the spookiness inherent in Quantum Mechanics. Things are just weird.

​ John K Clark​

[John Clark]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:11 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​

If matter and energy and information can't move FTL, then what are these "influences", physically?

​If you know the answer to that question buy a ticket to Stockholm because you've just won the Nobel Prize in physics. Nobody understands how in the world things could operate the way they do, but they do so nevertheless.  ​

The same EPR results can be obtained if you allow the future state of quantum systems to influence past ones 

​Yes, non-local causes have not yet been ruled out by experiment. ​

 

​> ​

which I believe is what the physics says actually happens

​That would be the ​T

ransactional

​

Interpretation of

​​

Quantum

​

Mechanics

​, a rival of both Copenhagen and the MWI. John Cramer thinks it's true but not a lot of others do.​

​> ​

there is no preferred time direction for the evolution of a physical system that I know of,

​As far as we know the fundamental laws of physics have

no preferred time direction

​, therefore the ​time asymmetry that we see all about us (the second law of thermodynamics for example) must be due to something else and there is only one thing that could be, initial conditions.  

 John K Clark