What's the story with physics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
No, it isn't my opinion. It's a fact, since you have not demonstrated that it explains anything.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

"Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation attempts to solve the problem by suggesting that there is only one wave function, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses—so there is no measurement problem. Instead, the act of measurement is simply an interaction between quantum entities, e.g. observer, measuring instrument, electron/positron etc., which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate how the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear in measurements, work later extended by Bryce DeWitt."
 
Mike Helland said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

"Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation attempts to solve the problem by suggesting that there is only one wave function, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses—so there is no measurement problem. Instead, the act of measurement is simply an interaction between quantum entities, e.g. observer, measuring instrument, electron/positron etc., which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate how the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear in measurements, work later extended by Bryce DeWitt."
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to answer the questions?
 
Mike Helland said:
Oof.

Let's parse this together.

* Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration:
* relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.

A little trimming:

* Absolute time flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration:
* relative time is some sensible measure of duration by the means of motion; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "

Two different concepts.
Click to expand...

Exactly, two different concepts, the concept of time (actual or absolute) and the concept of measurement (perceived or relative) In this case the one concept, measurement, is being applied to the other concept, absolute time. Trying to pawn off the significantly district concept of measurement as just some other concept of time, simply because that is where it is being applied in this case, is disingenuous at best.

Mike Helland said:
Relative time is a measurement.

Absolute time is not.
Click to expand...

Ah so close, just ignored that whole inconvenient "of duration" part.

As such, "Relative time is a measurement" of "Absolute time". Thus, one type, style, brand, flavor, category, form, kind, verity, class, concept of time, absolute, and the measurement of such. Relative, not because the time itself is relative but simply because the concept of measurement itself is.
 
The Man said:
Exactly, two different concepts, the concept of time (actual or absolute) and the concept of measurement (perceived or relative).
Click to expand...

The problem with your actual/perceived description is that means seconds and minutes aren't actual. Relative time is not actual time.

Users of the absolute/relative terminology (Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schopenhauer, etc) aren't trying to dismiss the relative world as fake.

Relative reality, with its relative space and relative time, is still real. Still actual.

Lacking access to any kind of absolute reference frame, our measurements of time are pretty important, and should be considered "actual."

This comes from a view of the world as a "hierarchy of the real", which is pretty common throughout history, but not so much anymore.
 
Mike Helland said:
The problem with your actual/perceived description is that means seconds and minutes aren't actual. Relative time is not actual time.
Click to expand...

Again, in the assertion by Newton relative time is simply his reference to the measurement of his concept of absolute time. Ignoring stuff posted doesn't help you.

Mike Helland said:
Users of the absolute/relative terminology (Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schopenhauer, etc) aren't trying to dismiss the relative world as fake.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone claiming they were. Making up stuff not posted doesn't help you either.

Mike Helland said:
Relative reality, with its relative space and relative time, is still real. Still actual.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're just going to ignore the context of the post you quoted one line from and had been going on, the assertion by Newton? Which was that the measurements of time, being relative, apparent, and common need not reflect the true nature of his one concept of time, absolute.

Mike Helland said:
Lacking access to any kind of absolute reference frame, our measurements of time are pretty important, and should be considered "actual."

This comes from a view of the world as a "hierarchy of the real", which is pretty common throughout history, but not so much anymore.
Click to expand...

Well, he did die in 1727, so it's been quite some time.
 
The Man said:
I don't recall anyone claiming they were.
Click to expand...

The terminology used by Newton and others is absolute and relative.

Your terminology is actual and perceived.

Standard terminology:

Our measurements of time are relative, not absolute.

Your terminology:

Our measurements of time are perceived, not actual.
 
Mike Helland said:
The terminology used by Newton and others is absolute and relative.
Click to expand...

"The terminology used by Newton" is absolute and "relative, apparent, and common"

Mike Helland said:
Your terminology is actual and perceived.
Click to expand...

Also absolute and relative, you know, you even quoted it in the one line before.

Deliberate ignorance still won't help you.


Mike Helland said:
Standard terminology:

Our measurements of time are relative, not absolute.

Your terminology:

Our measurements of time are perceived, not actual.
Click to expand...

Again, you just quoted me using both relative and absolute as well as perceived and actual. So whatever limitation of terminology you perceive for me is still only relative to you and not absolute or even actually what you have quoted me using.
 
The Man said:
"The terminology used by Newton" is absolute and "relative, apparent, and common"
Click to expand...

This is what he says:

"Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common."

He's breaking them up into two.

Actual and perceived are a bit off to me, but it's not a big deal.

In any case, as others have said, how this can be stated mathematically is more important.

I think it goes something like this:


Code: 
var particles = []
var t = 0 // absolute time

// add particles that make up some clocks and an observer

while (true) {
    t++ // increment absolute time

    // do physics on the particles
}

Here, t is absolute time, and as programmers of the model, we have access to it.

The particles in the model should make up some clocks and a machine that's able to read them (using computer vision) and record the time.

These measurement records won't have a specific variable in RAM that we can read. The only variables in the program are particles and t.

The measurement records will be encoded in the particles as however the machine recorded its measurements. Say it had a spool of paper made of the virtual particles and it could print out the measurement. We should be able to read that sheet of paper, which tells us the time according to an observer that exists purely within the model.

If we began to move the clocks around, the observer might start to see some differences. At no point does the observer have access to absolute time, the t variable. It's version of time is made purely by the changes it can see, such as moving hands on a clock.

This might sound bizarre, but check out page 9 of Everett's thesis:

We have the task of making deductions about the appearance of phenomena
to observers which are considered as purely physical systems and are treated
within the theory. To accomplish this it is necessary to identify some present
properties of such an observer with features of the past experience of the
observer. Thus, in order to say that an observer 0 has observed the event α,
it is necessary that the state of 0 has become changed from its former state
to a new state which is dependent upon α.

It will suffice for our purposes to consider the observers to possess memo-
ries (i.e., parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states are in correspon-
dence with past experience of the observers). In order to make deductions
about the past experience of an observer it is sufficient to deduce the present
contents of the memory as it appears within the mathematical model.

As models for observers we can, if we wish, consider automatically func-
tioning machines, possessing sensory apparatus and coupled to recording
devices capable of registering past sensory data and machine configurations.

We can further suppose that the machine is so constructed that its present
actions shall be determined not only by its present sensory data, but by
the contents of its memory as well. Such a machine will then be capable
of performing a sequence of observations (measurements), and furthermore
of deciding upon its future experiments on the basis of past results. If we
consider that current sensory data, as well as machine configuration, is im-
mediately recorded in the memory, then the actions of the machine at a given
instant can be regarded as a function of the memory contents only, and all
9relavant [sic] experience of the machine is contained in the memory.

For such machines we are justified in using such phrases as “the machine
has perceived A” or “the machine is aware of A” if the occurrence of A is
represented in the memory, since the future behavior of the machine will
be based upon the occurrence of A. In fact, all of the customary language
of subjective experience is quite applicable to such machines, and forms the
most natural and useful mode of expression when dealing with their behavior,
as is well known to individuals who work with complex automata.
Click to expand...
 
Mike Helland said:
My description of absolute time is the variable t in the mathematical model, whereas relative time is encoded in the memory configurations of the model's internal observers.

They are both present in the mathematics, but exist very differently, and fit Newton's definitions just as well as Everett's.
Click to expand...

I have seen zero mathematics from you. You don’t even understand high school differential calculus. All you have is computer models into which you put garbage and out of which garbage, necessarily, comes.
 
Mike Helland said:
This is what he says:

"Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common."

He's breaking them up into two.

Actual and perceived are a bit off to me, but it's not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Ok wasn't a big deal to me and particularly why I often used them in combination with absolute and relative, as you quoted.

Not sure why "perceived" would seem off to you since you quote Everett using it below.


Mike Helland said:
In any case, as others have said, how this can be stated mathematically is more important.

I think it goes something like this:


Code: 
var particles = []
var t = 0 // absolute time

// add particles that make up some clocks and an observer

while (true) {
    t++ // increment absolute time

    // do physics on the particles
}

Here, t is absolute time, and as programmers of the model, we have access to it.

The particles in the model should make up some clocks and a machine that's able to read them (using computer vision) and record the time.

These measurement records won't have a specific variable in RAM that we can read. The only variables in the program are particles and t.

The measurement records will be encoded in the particles as however the machine recorded its measurements. Say it had a spool of paper made of the virtual particles and it could print out the measurement. We should be able to read that sheet of paper, which tells us the time according to an observer that exists purely within the model.

If we began to move the clocks around, the observer might start to see some differences. At no point does the observer have access to absolute time, the t variable. It's version of time is made purely by the changes it can see, such as moving hands on a clock.

This might sound bizarre, but check out page 9 of Everett's thesis:
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound bizarre, but again just sounds self-defeatedly useless.

Also, as hecd2 remarks, no math to be found.

And here we are again, you specifically assert that "At no point does the observer have access to absolute time". So the actual duration of that absolute time can't be reflected in their perception or measurement of time. That's not to say that their measurements or perceptions aren't real, they are after all really their measurement and perceptions. However, they are explicitly, by your own assertion, not reflective of the underlying actual absolute time. So whether that underlying actual absolute time exists or not doesn't actually change the outcome of any experiment(s).
 
The Man said:
Also, as hecd2 remarks, no math to be found.
Click to expand...

t=0;
while (true) t++;

That's the definition of absolute time in the model.

It's missing the billions of particles and laws of physics though.

However, they are explicitly, by your own assertion, not reflective of the underlying actual absolute time. So whether that underlying actual absolute time exists or not doesn't actually change the outcome of any experiment(s).
Click to expand...

If the laws of physics in the program don't require the t variable, you could remove it.

They might though.
 
The "absolute" versus "measured" distinction can apply to anything, though. My hand has some absolute number of fingers on it, but I cannot know that absolute number with any certainty, only the imperfectly remembered result of the previous times I've counted them or my perception of how many I see with my imperfect vision.

That doesn't lead to the conclusion I have two different kinds of fingers, though.
 
Mike Helland said:
t=0;
while (true) t++;
Click to expand...
That's not maths. That is some very simple programming.

There is no maths evident in your posts - just hand waving. And, as I said, any discussion of the nature of space and time absent mathematics is pointless drivelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom