The quantum source of space-time • Hacker News Board

Re: The quantum source of space-time

#121

Post by dschiptsov » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 7:08 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #95

dschiptsov wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a proof? Western philosophy, so far, succeed in separating these concepts as being a priory which is perfectly reasonable, considering that any sensory input which is subsequently used to train and condition our mind is coming serialized by out sense organ, so, for a mind, which is a result of conditioning by the senses, the notion of succession is a priory . Conditioning by shared physical environment gives…

What would you ask of a proof? If you're reading some text, how do you determine if the text constitutes a proof?

To "see" Universe as it is we have to remove an observer - a mind which creates appearances and conditions itself with them.

It is a hack, so to speak.)

Re: The quantum source of space-time

#122

Post by lisper » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 7:27 AM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #117

lisper wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe this interpretation fails to explain experiments where people have entangled particles with timelike separation [1] I don't have time to read that paper right now, but it sounds like simple entanglement transfer, not unlike what is done for "quantum teleportation." In any case, the math behind QIT is simply the math of QM, so anything that QM can explain, QIT can explain. [UPDATE:] There was a published v…

I'm not sure what you mean by "There is essentially no dispute over the facts any more." As far as I understand, no-one has been able (yet) to make a prediction based on the many-worlds interpretation that could (even in theory, with infinite resources and time) be tested experimentally. Same goes for the Copenhagen interpretation. Thus neither of these are proper scientific theories (in the sense of Popper), and so…

Read my paper. It describes exactly such an experiment.

Re: The quantum source of space-time

#123

Post by lisper » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 7:30 AM UTC

typon wrote: post #111

lisper wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on the road with extremely limited internet connectivity so I can't watch a video at the moment. But may I make a suggestion? Why don't you read my paper or watch my video before you decide that I'm wrong. In fifteen years, no one who has actually read it has taken issue with it. (And, BTW, the only reason it isn't a published peer-reviewed publication is that when I submitted it, it was rejected on the grounds t…

Never said you're wrong. You may be right, I don't know. I just know that I don't believe you when you say extremely intelligent experts in the field are all wrong, except for one camp (they can even be a majority). I just have an epistemological problem with your views.

Again, hard to say without seeing the video, but my guess is that they're not wrong, they're just engaged in (IMHO) bad pedagogy.

Re: The quantum source of space-time

#124

Post by dools » Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 8:39 AM UTC

dschiptsov wrote: post #73

dools wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematics doesn't imply anything. You can make a model using mathematics and then use it to make predictions, then test those predictions experimentally. By doing this a lot you can discover things and give them names like time, and proper time, and space and whatnot.

Is this a proof? Western philosophy, so far, succeed in separating these concepts as being a priory which is perfectly reasonable, considering that any sensory input which is subsequently used to train and condition our mind is coming serialized by out sense organ, so, for a mind, which is a result of conditioning by the senses, the notion of succession is a priory . Conditioning by shared physical environment gives…

Right so there's a thing we call time which is to do with how we experience the world around us. There is also a mathematical object of the same name which is part of a model which provides accurate predictions about how things behave. The more successful predictions a model has, the less likely it is that the model is fundamentally inaccurate. But although our perception of time is undoubtedly related to the thing represented by the mathematical object we also call time, they are not the same thing. One is a mathematical object, the other is a subjective experience.