There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit assumption "imagine a world in which everything is computational".
I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I wait. On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum > events more clearly and succinctly. > > Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. > > > > That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am computational, > and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence of many non > computational things, so everything cannot be a computational things. You > seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use implicitly some body/mind > identify thesis which are not consistent with computationalism. > > Bruno > > > > > In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional > spacetime background does NOT exist. > > Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in > a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum > 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. > > There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to > understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about > reality. > > Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle > properties in any particle interaction in comp space. > > The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of > all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among > the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. > > The results of such computational events is that the particle properties > of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be > to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing > particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties > conserved in that event. > > Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle > properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In > other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing > particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be > conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the > conservation laws. > > Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates > a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. > > Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The > result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships > which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional > interrelations. > > Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously > involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons > impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous > particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional > interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical > spacetime. > > He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually > exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional > relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of > the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and > manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar > spacetime. > > But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually > a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. > It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events > or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it > emerged. > > > Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually > unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every > mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely > independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked > and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When > that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved > into a single spacetime common to all its elements. > > E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created > their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their > own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the > conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human > observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. > > However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and > aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the > laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned > with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the > other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. > > There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no > 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of > the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment > from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a > measurement event. > > Edgar > > On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum >> events more clearly and succinctly. >> >> Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In >> particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional >> spacetime background does NOT exist. >> >> Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations >> in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum >> 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. >> >> There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to >> understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about >> reality. >> >> Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle >> properties in any particle interaction in comp space. >> >> The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of >> all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among >> the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. >> >> The results of such computational events is that the particle properties >> of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be >> to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing >> particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties >> conserved in that event. >> >> Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional >> particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction >> events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between the >> outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for >> them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to >> satisfy the conservation laws. >> >> Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates >> a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. >> >> Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The >> result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships >> which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional >> interrelations. >> >> Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously >> involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons >> impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous >> particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional >> interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical >> spacetime. >> >> He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually >> exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional >> relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of >> the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and >> manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar >> spacetime. >> >> But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually >> a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. >> It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events >> or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it >> emerged. >> >> >> Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model >> conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every >> mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely >> independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked >> and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When >> that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved >> into a single spacetime common to all its elements. >> >> E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created >> their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their >> own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the >> conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human >> observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. >> >> However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and >> aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the >> laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned >> with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the >> other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. >> >> There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no >> 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of >> the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment >> from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a >> measurement event. >> >> Edgar >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
