Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    I generally get Goedel wrong. My mention of "unknowable" referred to that provability. If the "system" is "all of mathematics" or "the universe", it looks like you can "run out of systems". I feel on shaky ground here.

    "Weak measurements" in QM work something like an integrating detector, and Heisenberg can be broken with sufficient time.

    Hidden variables don't bring anything to the party because QM is provably complete; therefore by Occam they are tossed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreyman"Weak measurements" in QM work something like an integrating detector, and Heisenberg can be broken with sufficient time.


    I keep reading that this week, but upon closer examination it seems to turn out that in certain situations the uncertainty measure is reduced by a factor of 2 or Pi or something. It reminds me of optical squeezed states, where you can sneakily arrange quantum mechanically that the noise is not as detectable as the signal and eke out a bit more SNR. I don't think that the concept of there being a limit on the mutual knowability of noncommuting variables is broken.
  2.  
    Posted By: AngusI think I was the one who said that so you must be having a violent agreement with me. I'm not sure how Andrew feels about it.


    Is this another mysterious Moletrappian vortex? I'd bet a dime, but not a dollar, that I quoted Angus his post and so should have had the correct attribution in the header. Regardless, I knew I was replying to Angus and I'll bet a dollar that he knew too.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    You can prove completeness of all the models you like. That gives me no confidence whatsoever about anything but your ability to prove models complete. It most certainly does _not_ prove that the model is a complete and accurate description of reality. A box of Crayons is complete when you get it from the store, provably so, and you can make a color swatch from each and every crayon in the box, perfect correspondence... to what is in the box. You can even synthesize new colors using what is in the box.

    Unfortunately some colors got left out of your box: gammaviolet, infrahot, a whole rainbow about which your model (the complete box of selfconsistent crayons) knows absolutely nothing.
  3.  
    If Susskind is right and there are 10^500 plus universes, then everything likely exists at all times and you are a skip stone traveling across them.

    (the last part is mine :)
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Nope. It's all virtual, statistical and probabilistic. An evolved multi-player game.
  4.  
    Posted By: sonoboyNope. It's all virtual, statistical and probabilistic. An evolved multi-player game.


    From Autodesk's Walker's website:

    Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check: the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games, randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were hit—check: quantum mechanics.
  5.  
    And eventually, the mods cancel your log-in account at some arbitrary instant, often just when you are having the most fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    Planck units schmanck units. We talked about this before. You get 'em when you figure out how to calculate basic units from only fundamental constants. Where but in speculations has it been demonstrated that they are limits to anything?

    It's interesting that the information content of a black hole event horizon happens to be the same as its surface area measured in square Planck distances. Who knows what that means? It's a long speculate from there to a universal Turing machine running on empty space.
    •  
      CommentAuthorterry1094
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: magic moment
    From Autodesk's Walker'swebsite:

    That is a kewl web site! I found this article written in 1989:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/sftriple/nanofuse.html

    which is amazingly prescient. Walker's story is an interesting one although not as exciting as John McAfee's.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    The Big Bang:

    Someone pushed the start button.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusPlanck units schmanck units.


    So are you saying that there's no real evidence for granularity, it's a breakdown in the math that produces the apparent granularity at tiny scales? Turtles all the way down and even further than that it's still turtles?

    There is no smallest thing, no shortest time, no ultimate closeness without touching? Zeno is trotting in his grave but I fear he'll never catch that silly rabbit.
    •  
      CommentAuthormagic moment
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusPlanck units schmanck units. We talked about this before.

    Not everyone has been here forever. Are you the same Anus in the politeness thread?

    It's interesting that the information content of a black hole event horizon happens to be the same as its surface area measured in square Planck distances. Who knows what that means?

    That the universe is a two dimensional hologram ... a book with 10^500 pages?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013
     
    I know no experimental evidence for it. It is apparently true that the uncertainty in energy approaches being large enough to match the rest mass of some elementary particles if you look that finely. The Casimir experiment does imply that such virtual particles exist. But does this imply a limit on the granularity of space? I don't know. If you look finer I suppose you would get bigger virtual particles, eventually virtual planets and galaxies and universes.

    It is thought by some that the Big Bang itself was a fluctuation in free space somewhere, somewhen. Uncertainty of energy at that scale must imply a length much smaller than Planck's?
  6.  
    Posted By: AngusUncertainty of energy at that scale must imply a length much smaller than Planck's?
    That is a really good point, profound in fact. How big is nothing? It must be very tiny indeed.
  7.  
    Look at it this way. There is either everything, or there is nothing, with finite probabilities for each. However the probabilities are distributed they add to unity. We just got lucky this time, that's all.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: magic moment
    Posted By: AngusPlanck units schmanck units. We talked about this before.

    Not everyone has been here forever. Are you the same Anus in the politeness thread?


    I just got up and felt round behind. Yes - it seems to be the same Anus, as far as I can tell from here. Why do you ask?

    Posted By: magic moment
    Posted By: AngusIt's interesting that the information content of a black hole event horizon happens to be the same as its surface area measured in square Planck distances. Who knows what that means?

    That the universe is a two dimensional hologram ... a book with 10^500 pages?


    That's a vast return of speculation for a tiny investment of fact. As well as being metaphorical to the point of incomprehensibility.
  8.  
    Posted By: AngusThat's a vast return of speculation for a tiny investment of fact. As well as being metaphorical to the point of incomprehensibility.

    Poetic license.
  9.  
    Learner's permit, maybe?
  10.  
    designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class
    I usually express this as "designed by a pimply video-game-playing teenager from the 15th dimension". Rather like my son, in fact.