Joy Christian wrote:I have made no claims that are even slightly wrong.
Amen
Joy Christian wrote:I have made no claims that are even slightly wrong.
Q-reeus wrote:According to a one Gavin Wince, we need not 1, not 2, but 3 dimensions of time to 'really make sense of it all'. His 'Existics' website: http://existics101.com/
And here's a lengthy YouTube vid setting it all out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bbYNCdqak
Could not watch it all the way through - 'confusing' best sums it up for me. Then again, maybe others have looked at his stuff and found it stimulating or enlightening or even exhilarating, or whatever. Any thoughts?
Joy Christian wrote:To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.
Joy Christian wrote:Something I wrote on Albert Jan's blog page about the latest simulation that is worth reproducing here: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... tians.html:Joy Christian wrote:To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.
AnotherGuest wrote:The published output of the simulation http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 reveals that the size of the "true ensemble" is different for each pair of settings: N = 52585, 52101, 52291, and 51915 for just four particular setting pairs. It seems to me that this contradicts the theoretical claim, that the selection of the "true ensemble" from the "pre ensemble" does not depend on the actual settings.
Joy Christian wrote:I am going to ignore the comments made by AnotherGuest and Heinera, because the issues they are raising are already addressed by me in my previous posts.
Instead, for those of you who have followed my work and understand my 3-sphere model, I have cleaned up the simulation to make the main ideas clearer:
http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238.
http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 wrote:# This ratio does not depend on the settings a and b, as
# proved by the graph below: N/L = 1. Consequently, the probability density
# rho(u, s) for the (u, s) also remains independent of the settings a and b.
Joy Christian wrote:To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.
Joy Christian wrote:So the flatlanders think that they are being deceived. They certainly are --- by their inability to liberate themselves from the flat land, and by their inability to read:
http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238Joy Christian wrote:To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.
PS: I have added calculations of the numbers N and L explicitly in the four Bell-test cases so that no doubt remains. Note surprisingly, N = L in each of the four cases.
http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 wrote:N = n((A * B), a, u, b, u) # The total number of simultaneous +/- events
Ns[i, j] = N # Total number of simultaneous events observed by Alice and Bob
Ls[i, j] = n(s, a, u, b, u) # The number of initial states (u, s) within S^3
Joy Christian wrote:I see no point in keep responding to the foolish argument being insisted upon by the above flatlander, who has never bothered to read either the simulation or the theoretical paper on which it is based. Like minkwe did, it is best to put him on ignore list. But I hope that other readers are not hoodwinked by his foolish argument.
Ben6993 wrote:Q-Reeus,
I couldn't watch it all the way through, though it was entertaining, as the style of delivery put me off.
Armin, who used to post in the old s.p.f used to have a model where the electron had its own internal time dimension.
I believe the same, too. Black holes have their own internal time dimensions?
I may have oversimplified it but the s time scale of Greg Egan, in one of the links that Joy has just above posted, is the time in the n+1 dimensions which runs differently to the projected time onto the n dimensions. But t and s are not really fundamentally different, it is just that t is a projection of s? This reminds me of a cubist comment on Joy's new graphic where. ... No.... it is easier to see on http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... tians.html where the electrons move in the red dimensions but flatland is the table top. The projection of the redland is an ellipse on the table top (which is equivalent to the 'good' data in the old R simulation). The cubist comment is equivalent to saying that the simulations must be run in the circle on the table top where the green area contains the disputed, discarded data. Does that green data exist in real experiments? No, not if real experiment can give the cos curve. Does that green data exist in Joy's model? No, except as trimmed junk. Does that green data exist in flatland simulations? Should it? Impasse again.
There is a Leonard Susskind lecture at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK4rhkcsQDc
The black-hole information paradox, complementarity, and firewalls by Leonard Susskind
(I hope this is the right one!)
In it he mentions five main aspects for quantum gravity which from memory are:
QM, GR, BHs, entropy/thermodynamics, entanglement.
(It is interesting in this quantum gravity connection that JAY has newly reentered thermodynamic territory)
Susskind seems to link BHs to the entanglement. If you have two perfectly entangled BHs, and if Alice and Bob are in two different regions which are beyond each others horizons, then if Alice fell into her BH and Bob fell into his BH then they could eventually meet in the 'middle', despite originally being in regions of space which are disconnected. (Wormhole?) But it requires perfect entanglement. The less perfect the entanglement the less chance Alice and Bob have of meeting up.
I have a paper at http://wp.me/p18gTT-26 where the conclusion is "This paper shows that a Rasch analysis compresses its location parameter space according to the level of uncertainty in making judgements within that space. The more uncertain the judgements, the more compressed are the points on the scale." This seems to fit in with Suuskind's claim about entangled BHs leading to close proximity (in some dimensions or other) in that entanglement maximises the chance element, as seen in the 50% chance of A being -1 or +1. However since the A outcome in Joy's model is deterministic, and the chance only arises because of the counfounding of the double cover. I am not sure where that leaves entanglement supposedly being a fifth component to quantum gravity work.
By analogy one could argue that if it were possible to fall into an electron, like into a BH, one would exit our time dimension and enter the electron's internal time dimension. If Alice and Bob did this in their entangled particles, they could meet in the middle? Treating our universe like a particle, which I am in favour of, then as all particles collapse wavefunction on interaction, which signifies the end of the electron's internal time dimension, our universe could end its time at an interaction cf Penrose's CCC. Penrose's ends of cycle ought, in this logic, to correspond to particle interactions, where the universe is a particle.
Ben6993 wrote:Hi Joy
I have long ago said that it would be impasse because the 3spherists' geometry confounds with cubist non-locality. Can you explain a little more the significance of the flat plane for N/L, please? You earlier agreed that counterfactual realism returns if the data are restricted to the 'good' set, which is excellent. But if the 'good' dataset contains a different allowable range of b values for any given a and theta, then the cubists will see that as non-local information. Don't you need to see the 'good' dataset in the four dimensions (as a sphere, with one centre) to avoid the apparent non-locality (on the ellipsoid where there are two focii leading to flatland non-locality, when the sphere is projected on to flatland)?
Thank you, that is what I wanted to be sure of.Joy wrote:
Thus the 'good' dataset does not contain a different allowable range of b values for any given a value ...
Joy Christian wrote:But I have explicitly demonstrated in the simulation that (u, s) is not a function of a and b --- i.e., it is independent of a and b (see the first graph in the simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238).
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 1 guest