| Author |
Message |
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject:
|
  |
|
| Inventor wrote: | | May I suggest a Washing Machine? |
Oh happy, happy, joy, joy the washing machine song ... or not.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | May I suggest a Washing Machine? |
Oh happy, happy, joy, joy the washing machine song ... or not. |
It's kind of like that, yes!
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | I really enjoy making these non-words speeches and songs, but, for some reason, I think of the religious people who "speak in tongues" as part of their religious ceremonies. I understand that fundamentalist Christians are into this. I have strong feelings not to be associated with these people in any way. (Maybe I'm anti-religious in this dimension - some form of latent bigotry - hey, this is on-topic). |
Well, there's scat singing in jazz. No zealotrous connotations there!
Then there's the whole practice of deconstructing -- deconstructing melodies, harmonies, rhythms, and the timbre of instruments during performance. No reason not to deconstruct language. The fundamentalist right don't have a monopoly on that, either.
Some of my best design work takes the form of automatic writing, sketching out a design and not consciously knowing where it's going. Seems apropos for vocal improvisation as well.
A lot of my colonial period ancestors were Friends and Brethrens -- "Quakers" and "Dunkards" -- who split Europe to get away from wars and live in spiritual harmony. The Selfish Genes Persist (Frodo Lives!). Not particularly heavy on either theology or proselytization, but both were and are pretty hard core pacifist.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18532
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 267
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
As I understand it, there are recent scientific theories that there are many more universes than the one in which we live. The number is apparently infinite. There are four classes of universes; it is possible for all four types to exist simultaneously.
Anyway, there is an idea, a scientific one no less, that there is a universe in which every single possibility of our lives is played out, down to the quantum event level. In some theories, these alternative universes occupy the same space time as we do.
No matter, this means that going forward, we will each experience every possible outcome.
This is a scientific theory, I repeat for emphasis.
So, how come we are experiencing this particular universe, and not some more or less attractive one?
Apparently, so the theory goes, we are in fact experiencing those other universes.
This means I am living, in some universe, a life where all my wildest fantasies are coming true, and, in another universe, I get hit by a truck when I am 8 years old.
I wonder how there is enough room for all these universes. Oh, yes, there are 11 dimensions.
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ian-s
Joined: Apr 01, 2004
Posts: 2672
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Audio files: 43
G2 patch files: 626
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Acoustic Interloper wrote: |
Well, there's scat singing in jazz. No zealotrous connotations there!
|
I had that thought as well.
Electro scat... Bee boo bop bleep bloop |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Octahedra
Joined: Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 149
Location: Cheshire, UK
Audio files: 7
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | ...there are recent scientific theories that there are many more universes than the one in which we live. The number is apparently infinite...
So, how come we are experiencing this particular universe, and not some more or less attractive one? |
This is probably the best explanation I've heard.
See also this general intro to quantum physics.
If you're not sure why you should really spend the time wading through that whole quantum physics sequence before getting to the conclusion, see this, which I'd recommend to anyone who wonders if understanding science is 'too hard', 'not worth it' or 'just for eggheads'!
Gordon |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seraph
Editor
Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:45 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| jhaible wrote: | | ...But I guess I must tell the whole story in order to make it clear... |
Fascinating story  Thanks for sharing it with us This thread is getting better than I thought 
_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube
| Quote: | | Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jhaible
Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:42 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: |
I ask that if you ever feel that our community makes you feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because of your expressed beliefs, you will let us know so we can take action to correct that. |
Thank you for your support! But really, when I read about "taking action", that sort of frightens me. I don't feel unwelcome at all, I love to get critical questions - be it on technical topics or on religious topics -: it's the best way to make things clear and to avoid misunderstandings.
JH.
_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Oskar
Joined: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1751
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:59 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| jhaible wrote: | [ I don't feel unwelcome at all, I love to get critical questions - be it on technical topics or on religious topics -: it's the best way to make things clear and to avoid misunderstandings.
JH. |
Attaboy!  I reckon that as long as it doesn't get borderline abusive, a good discussion, even to the point of getting a bit of a rise, that's all to the good. Reminds me a bit of a story my mum, a retired teacher told me: She was outside the school building when some 11 year olds erupted from the junior school next door, one of them shouting "Let's play rugby until someone starts to cry!"
_________________
Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:01 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: |
This is a scientific theory, I repeat for emphasis.
|
I think these are actually scientific hypotheses. For one, they have as yet been unable to produce predictions that can be tested. The distinction is important.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:29 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Oskar wrote: | | I reckon that as long as it doesn't get borderline abusive, a good discussion, even to the point of getting a bit of a rise, that's all to the good. |
You mean we should act like adults who have a sense of humor about the difficulties complexities and absurdities of the human condition, including our own rather than look for reason to be stuffy, offended and self righteous?
Then, good idea, very good idea!
Edit:
Added "absurdities" -- very important part of life experience
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:42 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | Anyway, there is an idea, a scientific one no less, that there is a universe in which every single possibility of our lives is played out, down to the quantum event level. In some theories, these alternative universes occupy the same space time as we do.. |
I'm in the middle of reading Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe, so I can't resist this topic. Lloyd, who is perhaps the premier quantum computer architect alive (he's in the mechanical engineering department at MIT, as a quantum mechanical engineer!), does not subscribe to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
| Quote: | | There is some division in the physics community about the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In 1997, I debated the issue with Oxford physicist David Deutsch, who is a strong advocate of the Many Worlds picture. I'm not sure who won the debate in this particular world. |
The six-page debate between Deutsch and Lloyd is worth the read. These are the two key proponents of the two sides of this debate.
Deutsch outlines his Multiverse perspective here.
They mention a book by Penrose, probably The Emperor's New Mind, to which Penrose has written a follow up. Penrose proposes the notion that the human brain uses quantum mechanical techniques to achieve consciousness. Penrose has been debated by numerous physicists on this idea, including Hawking.
Lloyd, while the conservative on the Many Worlds interpretation, argues convincingly that the physical universe is essentially equivalent to a quantum computer that is computing physical reality. A quantum computer needed to simulate the universe requires as many atoms to process the simulation as the universe contains atoms, using formal, quantum computational mechanisms. The quantum simulation is architecturally indistinguishable from the thing being simulated, therefore, they are the same. No additional mechanisms needed, including (apparently) String Theory with its knotted-up dimensions and lack of demonstrability (so far).
For the topic of the thread, Deutsch's 19 minute video "What is our place in the cosmos?" is an interesting watch. It doesn't touch on quantum mechanics much.
I drafted a paper a few years ago on using quantum superposition to model a composition, with the collapse of the wave function that emits actual music triggered by entanglement with musicians and listeners that constitute the aggregate measuring device. It would provide a heck of a means for improvisation.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Acoustic Interloper wrote: | | No additional mechanisms needed, including (apparently) String Theory with its knotted-up dimensions and lack of demonstrability (so far) |
String theory may be a half step ahead on one count. It appears that it is at least falsifiable . Also doesn't string "theory" unify GR and QM while the other "theories" you mention do not? I'm relatively certain that the many worlds interpretations I am familiar with do not. (Deutsch: "Hence the theory presented here and the classical theory of foliation must in reality be two limiting cases of a single, yet-to-be-discovered theory – the theory of the structure of the multiverse
under quantum gravity.") As to the "Quantum computer universe" I am uncertain but would like to know.
.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Inventor wrote: | | bachus wrote: | | Inventor wrote: | | May I suggest a Washing Machine? |
Oh happy, happy, joy, joy the washing machine song ... or not. |
It's kind of like that, yes! |
Is the machinery in the opening shot a closeup of a a sewing machine's bobbin case in action, do you/anyone think?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18532
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 267
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Acoustic Interloper wrote: |
The six-page debate between Deutsch and Lloyd is worth the read. These are the two key proponents of the two sides of this debate. |
I read that debate - One guy is emotionally committed that this universe is real. Seems like the old "Earth is the center of the universe" argument. IMHO
That isn't an outline, it's a complete 298 page book you can read online. After watching the movie below, I found spot reading much easier because I can imagine him saying those things. I would probably love an audio version of this. 
A fun talk.
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | Also doesn't string "theory" unify GR and QM while the other "theories" you mention do not? I'm relatively certain that the many worlds interpretations I am familiar with do not. |
Lloyd's book indicates that he believes his model of quantum computation indicates a path to the GUT.
He does not dis String Theory, by the way. Doesn't even mention it, in fact.
| Quote: | | As to the "Quantum computer universe" I am uncertain but would like to know. |
It's the first I've been back to reading this stuff in a while. I think Lloyd's book is worth reading.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18532
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 267
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| jhaible wrote: | | Thank you for your support! But really, when I read about "taking action", that sort of frightens me. |
Sorry to frighten; I'm an activist by nature. I feel responsible for this place. That maps into a commitment and action. Sometimes appropriate action is just suggesting that something might be reworded. People sometimes say things in unintended ways, especially, but not limited to, non native English speakers. I don't like being a cop.
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | I read that debate - One guy is emotionally committed that this universe is real. Seems like the old "Earth is the center of the universe" argument. IMHO |
I don't know enough to take a position. The universe is increasingly inscrutable to me 
My problem with the Multiverse idea (even though I sort of like it) is that, in going from quantum to classical world views, the wave function collapses from a quantum superposition of states to a classical state when anything outside that wave function entangles with it, where entanglement is any form of interaction with anything outside that wave function. We don't get concrete, measurable phenomena until the wave function entangles with "something else." It's not enough to have wave functions with limitless bifurcations in order to have multiple "real universes." Those potentialities have to get entangled with "something else" in order to collapse to concrete, measurable. One side of the argument holds that, after entanglement, the other potentialities diminish, while the other side says that they don't, i.e., that they persist on equal footing.
But what, exactly, does that wave function entangle with in order to collapse?
If the answer is, "another wave function," then this answer merely delays resolution of the question. Now we have a bigger wave function. Repeat this step inductively, and as far as I can see, we have to infer that in the limit, the wave function never collapses, because there is nothing "outside" it with which it can entangle.
I hereby posit the Noverse model as the Parson counterpart to the Deutsch Multiverse:
The encompassing wave function never collapses
OR
The quantum / classical duality is an illusion. There are not many worlds. There is, in fact, no concrete, classical world.
Another duality, therefore wrong as well, at least as far as my Buddhist leanings would indicate. Anti-religious Buddhism?
I have always puzzled about this aspect of the collapse of a quantum state. How could it possibly "collapse" if it's all quantum at the core? I can see it getting more rigid locally. Maybe the collapse between quantum state and classical state is just another quantum transition. We're in a superposition of quantum 0 and classical 1. Is that the multiverse?
I agree that it's a fun video to watch. Apparently, by the biology field trip reference, Dawkins was in the hall at the time.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Acoustic Interloper wrote: | | My problem with the Multiverse idea (even though I sort of like it) is that, in going from quantum to classical world views, the wave function collapses from a quantum superposition of states to a classical state when anything outside that wave function entangles with it, where entanglement is any form of interaction with anything outside that wave function. |
I'm not sure what you mean by classical state. Don't the equations of QM converge 'smoothly" in the limit to classical but a classical state is not actually attainable. When a particle's velocity increases to the speed of light its deBroglie wave slows to the the speed of light. As a particle's mass increases to infinity its' deBroglie wave length shrinks to 0. etc., etc..
So in that context could you explain what you mean by classical state?
Edit:
Or in what context were you using it?
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Acoustic Interloper
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: Berks County, PA
Audio files: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| bachus wrote: | | Don't the equations of QM converge 'smoothly" in the limit to classical but a classical state is not actually attainable. |
You've got a better formal background in this stuff than have I, which is good, because nothing beats ignorance better than a good tutor 
In this case, I think you said what I thought. "The equations of QM converge 'smoothly" in the limit to classical but a classical state is not actually attainable." No classical states. There aren't an actual infinity of us deciding whether or not to respond to this thread, with an infinity of possible responses.
Paraphrase: "The branching of alternatives converge 'smoothly" in the limit to concrete alternatives, but concrete alternatives are not actually attainable." This is an ongoing superposition, a field of potentiality that never fully resolves. The threads don't separate.
Perhaps QM seems counterintuitive because the human mind is largely delusional.
I remain skeptical about both the Multiverse and Penrose's interpretation of brain-as-quantum-mechanism because I am always skeptical of anything that threatens to seduce me. I guess that's why I've been a one-woman man all my life.
Nighty night. German Shepard's gotta go out to pee.
_________________
When the stream is deep
my wild little dog frolics,
when shallow, she drinks. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18532
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 267
G2 patch files: 60
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:11 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Acoustic Interloper wrote: |
I remain skeptical about both the Multiverse and Penrose's interpretation of brain-as-quantum-mechanism because I am always skeptical of anything that threatens to seduce me. |
This is pretty much equivalent to Lloyd's argument in that debate, IMHO
Anyway, doesn't the Schrodinger cat in a box thought experiment make the point that quantum level stuff works up to the level of cats? If it is the case for cats, then it's reasonable to assume that it is the same for dogs.
| Quote: | | German Shepard's gotta go out to pee. |
QED
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Oskar
Joined: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1751
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: |
Anyway, doesn't the Schrodinger cat in a box thought experiment make the point that quantum level stuff works up to the level of cats? If it is the case for cats, then it's reasonable to assume that it is the same for dogs. QED |
I thought Schrödinger's Cat was a little joke of his, just having a little pop at quantum theoreticians 
_________________
Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
Lin Yutang (1895-1976) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Inventor
Stream Operator
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 6221
Location: near Austin, Tx, USA
Audio files: 270
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I had a cat named Schrodinger. One day it ran off and disappeared.
OK bad joke. You'll note, however, that now we've gone full circle and are back to the joking. In this way the thread represents the Hindu notion of the circle (or rather spiral) of life, death, and reincarnation. Round and round we go...
_________________
"Let's make noise for peace." - Kijjaz |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seraph
Editor
Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
you are right Les: back to our unscheduled program
_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube
| Quote: | | Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: 2924
Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:53 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| mosc wrote: | | Anyway, doesn't the Schrodinger cat in a box thought experiment make the point that quantum level stuff works up to the level of cats? If it is the case for cats, then it's reasonable to assume that it is the same for dogs. |
But it doesn't. That seeming paradox has been resolved. In QM "Observation" does not in fact mean human observation. It simply means any quantum interaction. The larger the object the sooner such an interaction must occur with the consequent collapse of the state vector (into another state vector) .
Oskar, I dont' remember its source, it was taken seriously by some for a while but was (in a different form) subjected to experiment and found false.
_________________
The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
