Subject: The theorem of Conway and Kochen does indeed affect the relativistic GRW models Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:38:10 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net> To: Angelo Bassi <bassi@mathematik.unimuenchen.de> CC: GianCarlo Ghirardi <ghirardi@ts.infn.it>, Detlef Dürr <duerr@mathematik.unimuenchen.de>, Rafael Sorkin <sorkin@physics.syr.edu>, Simon Kochen <kochen@math.princeton.edu>, John Conway <jhorcon@yahoo.com>, Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu> Dear Angelo, It seems to me that you have underestimated the ConwayKochen Theorem. The way I see it, the best way to understand it is to take part in the quiz at http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky Just a hint: "everything which might possibly determine an event" [Ref. 1] is not necessarily 'information'. It may look like 'information', but it could be a different entity: just cast your vote in the quiz at the link above, and I believe you'll find it out for yourself. I also invite all your colleagues to take part in the quiz. Since we don't like the "collapse", the ultimate and indispensable proof that we can eliminate it is to find a classical limit from STR. I've offered three options to vote, but if you can think of a fourth one, I'll be delighted to learn about it. Please be assured that, once you put your cards on the table, I will elaborate on the issue in the subject line. More at http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html#GR http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html Best regards to GianCarlo. Dimi
"assume the standard formalism of special relativity" "Information cannot travel at a speed greater than the speed of light. "In the last axiom, we used the term
"information" in an intuitive sense, without specifying what it means;
though we do not like to resort to such a vague term in setting the axioms
of any logical reasoning, we use it simply to adhere to the original formulation
of [1].
==========================
Subject: Re: The Free Will Theorem, quantph/0604079 v1 ====================
Dear Professor Kochen, RE: "The Free Will Theorem tells us something very important, namely that although a “rough” texture forces *some* decision to be made, it does not actually choose *which* decision that is." Thank God it does not! More at http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html Kindest regards, Dimi Chakalov
==================== P.S. Let me please add some comments on your wonderful paper. You and Prof. Conway wrote (p. 2): "It also makes it clear that this failure to predict is a merit rather than a defect, since these results involve free decisions that the universe has not yet made." Hence the "fate" (if any) of the universe is *undecidable*, as stressed by Paul Frampton and Tomo Takahashi, http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Rendall.html#F2 You also wrote (p. 26): "No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be!" Hence 'fate' does not exist: "The stage is still being built while the show goes on." (p. 27) Sounds like a strongly nonlinear GR "talk" between the stage and the show, with a genuinely undecidable outcome, doesn't it? Final quote (p. 27): "The mere existence of free will already has consequences for the philosophy of general relativity. That theory has been thought by some to show that “the flow of time” is an illusion. We quote only one of many distinguished authors to that effect: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen” (Hermann Weyl). "It is remarkable that this common opinion, often referred to as the “block universe” view, has come about merely as a consequence of the usual way of modeling the mathematics of general relativity as a theory about the curvature of an eternally existing arena of spacetime. In the light of the Free Will theorem this view is mistaken, since the future of the universe is not determined. (...) The stage is still being built while the show goes on." As John Wheeler used to say, "time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once". This 'all' should include 'the unknown unknown', in which case we should seek some genuine nonunitary temporal evolution of the universe, to accommodate 'the unknown unknown'. That's the "window" left for the Free Will. A typical example of (still) undecided
future of your country and the
http://dchakalov.googlepages.com Just some night thoughts. D.C. On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:12 +0300,
Dimi Chakalov wrote:
Note: It is hardly surprising that
the efforts to count the number of vacua turned out to be in the range
of googles: see A.N. Schellekens
here
and L. Susskind here. The "number" of such
vacua should be undecidable, hence it cannot
be a number per se. The Landscape is a dynamic entity open to 'the
unknown unknown'. It's a
whole new ball game.
D. Chakalov
=============
Subject:
Re: Loading the dice against free will
Dear Mr. Appleyard, Thank you for your reply. In your latest article "Loading the
dice against free will" (The Sunday
you mentioned ConwayKochen Free Will Theorem, which I think is of paramount importance, http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Kochen.html I hesitate to comment on the way you've presented Gerard 't Hooft's "hidden variable" speculations and uncountable "dancing angels". Instead, I will offer you my understanding of CK Theorem. There is a remnant from the elusive
master/cosmological time arrow, which is being displayed as a fundamental
INdecisiveness in the physical world.
I've tried to elaborate on this remnant
from the master/cosmological time
http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Senovilla.html It all boils down to the nature of
the phenomenon that carries physical
http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Weinstein.html#F2 http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Weinstein.html#miracle We cannot pinpoint this phenomenon in a timesymmetric physical world, but instead of speculating about some "hidden variables" a la Gerard 't Hooft (or uncountable blond sexy dancing angels, which is basically the same), I believe we should try to understand the implications from KochenSpecker and ConwayKochen Theorems. Kindest regards, Dimi Chakalov
Idem, Physics in the Real Universe:
Time and Spacetime, grqc/0605049 v2.
"All past and future times are equally present, and there is nothing special about the present ('now'). There are Newtonian, Special Relativity, and General Relativity versions of this view (see Figures 14), the latter being most realistic as it is both relativistic and includes gravity (footnote 3). (Footnote 3: We do not consider here the possible variants when quantum gravity is taken into account.)
> On 15/5/06 23:34, "Dimi Chakalov"
<dimi@chakalov.net> wrote:
Subject: The primordial dark energy
flow
Dear Dr. Maroto, I found your "Dark energy in motion",
astroph/0605381 [Ref. 1] truly
http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Kochen.html#Appleyard I wonder if you can apply your ideas
to elucidate the socalled cosmic
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/map_model_2.gif Perhaps it is possible to build a quasi steady state model of the universe [Ref. 3], with some important (and certainly not original) modifications: the idea of 'cosmic equator' refers to a numerically finite but physically unattainable "maximum value of the world radius", as suggested by Einstein, http://users.adelphia.net/~44mrf/App4.html#ein Its numerical value increases along the cosmological time arrow, as driven by the socalled dark energy of [X], http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Rendall.html#Frampton but this last and unique SteadyState of The Whole Universe cannot be actually reached by the material (not the "dark") stuff in the universe, and can serve only as some horizonlike, physically unattainable, and sliding cutoff. It doesn't matter if this sliding is currently in some accelerated stage, since the "last" cosmic equator will be always "one step ahead" from the material (not the "dark") stuff that is chasing it. It's a bit like the old metaphor about the Dragon chasing its tail, but since you'd prefer math, perhaps you may wish to explore George Ellis' 'finite infinity' proposal, http://www.goddoesnotplaydice.net/Senovilla.html Perhaps you can find more blueprints from the primordial dark energy flow in [Refs. 46]. Kindest regards, Dimi Chakalov
References [Ref. 1] Antonio Lopez Maroto, Dark energy in motion, astroph/0605381 v1.http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0605381 "... even an observer at rest with
respect to the CMB could observe a
[Ref. 2] Map reveals
strange cosmos, by David Whitehouse, BBC News
Max Tegmark: "The octopole and quadrupole
components are arranged in a
[Ref. 3] G. Burbidge,
QuasiSteady State Cosmology, astroph/0108051 v1.http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0108051
[Ref. 4] Jarmo Mäkelä,
Area and Entropy: A New Perspective,
"Eq. (17) therefore provides a new
perspective for the relationship
[Ref. 5] Yanbei
Chen and Linqing Wen, Probing Spacetime Foam with
"More specifically, when a photon travels through a spacetime region, it does not follow only one particular ray, whose length is subject tothe fundamental "fuzziness" prescribed by Eq. (2), but instead, it would simultaneously sample an ensemble of many different neighboring rays, each of whom having a potentially different realization of thefundamental length fluctuation; the actual pathlength fluctuation must then be given by an averaging among these different length fluctuations. "Moreover, it is conceivable that
the size of the sampling region ofeach photon must be much bigger than
l_P, which is presumably also the correlation
length of fundamental
quantum fluctuations.
As aconsequence, the averaging must dramatically suppress the actual[delta][psi]
from the value given in Eq. (1), which assumes no averaging.
[Ref. 6] JeanPhilippe
Uzan, The acceleration of the universe and the
"The extra degrees of freedom, often
referred to as *dark energy* and needed
to explain the data, can be introduced as a new kind of matter oras a new
property of gravity."
================== Subject: The
car behind undenumerable doors
Dear Professor Cohen, I glanced at your Lecture Notes in Quantum Mechanics [Ref. 1], and noticed a peculiar statement (Sec. 46.5, Quantum measurements, Schroedinger's cat): "We call such type of unitary evolution
"ideal measurement". If the system
Let's see how things work from the
perspective of the human brain. I'll
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net/Rosinger.html 1. All are not hunters that blow
the horn.
You can keep 'the
quantum state' in your brain, and it will never
Only you can never catch 'the quantum
state', since it lives "outside" the
http://www.Goddoesnotplaydice.net/download.html Since you're teaching QM and speculate about some "quantum computing", would you tell these kids the whole truth about QM? Also, you stated that "on a universal scale the evolution is in fact unitary" [Ref. 1]. If it were a *fact*, you'd be teaching quantum gravity. Am I wrong? Sincerely yours, Dimi Chakalov 
"If the reader is not familiar with
this well knows "paradox", the following
[Ref. 2] Mohammad
Mehrafarin, A geometric approach to the canonical
Note: To understand the potential reality "behind" the four sayings above, see the John's jacket story and the proposal for 'potential point'. I'm only trying to supply QM and GR with what they do not have: reality. When I encountered the weirdness of QM in 1972, I was told that one can "solve" the main puzzle of QM simply by adopting the MarxistLeninist philosophy and the "statistical interpretation" [Ref. 1]. Now we have a sophisticated MarxistLeninist offspring called 'quantum computing', and our students are still left in the dark. Students are kids, and kids have the right to know everything. To begin with, how do you explain
the emergence of the classical world from the quantum
realm? The socalled decoherence doesn't
work. The reader is welcomed to verify my statement (certainly not
original) by elaborating on the case here.
D. Chakalov
==================
Subject: quantph/9905077 and Penrose's puzzle
Dear Professors Kochen and Ax: I'm trying to find an iterated conditional spectral state (Eq. 74 from your "Extension of Quantum Mechanics to Individual Systems", quantph/9905077) applicable to the famous puzzle due to Penrose, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/intro.html#Baez96 The way I see it, the problem boils down to the determination of the past of a system [Ref. 1]. Can you help, please? Also, may I ask you for clarification of your statement made in "Time Travel": "Actually, from the point of view of the individual theory of QM, talking of "things" already implies an unwarranted separation of states of the universe." Would you agree that a Kantian 'Ding an sich' can not be excluded on purely logical grounds? It seems to me that Prof. Chris Isham (cf. footnote 10 in [Ref. 2]) is not alien to this possibility. My efforts to understand QM are summarized at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Khrennikov.html#Växjö
Regards, Dimiter G. Chakalov
References [Ref. 1] A. Peres. Reply to the comment
of Y. Aharonov and L. Vaidman on "Time asymmetry in quantum mechanics:
a retrodiction paradox".
"A formal statement of the above property is that an optimal
determination of the past of a system can be achieved by an informationally
complete set of physical quantities. Such a set is always strongly noncommutative."
[Ref. 2] J. Butterfield and C.J. Isham.
Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum
Gravity.
==================== Note: The quote from Richard Feynman, which prompted my email above, was this (J. Conway and S. Kochen didn't provide a reference): “If someone tells you they understand quantum mechanics, then all you’ve learned is that you’ve met a liar.”
I never heard from John Conway and Simon Kochen,
and probably never will.
D. Chakalov
