wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > NKS Way of Thinking > Question on Quantum Multiverses
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
janos

CT

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 23

You wrote: "if I create a carbon copy of myself, will my consciousness somehow seep into that carbon copy? "

It was already discussed in the 60's last century by Stanislaw Lem. Here is a link to it.

http://www.lem.pl/english/dziela/dziela.htm

__________________
--------------------------------------
"..because Annushka has already bought
sunflower oil, and not only bought it, but
spilled it too."
Bulgakov: Master and Margarita

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-25-2005 06:19 PM
janos is offline Click Here to See the Profile for janos Click here to Send janos a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Richard T. Harbaugh
Independent researcher
Two Harbors, Minnesota

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 15

Originally posted by Tmaq
"You mention that definitions are false, but useful. Does that mean they aren't useful, contrary to your belief, or does that mean you seek a defintion of 'true' stronger than 'useful'?

"Annhilate it or decay it, and some of the waves/mass escapes as a spherically-shaped explosion of photons.


"As they toss those virtuals out, they do so in a spherical arrangement. Hence the 1/r^2 aspect to almost all of them; how often the mediators meet is caused by the cross-section each emitter 'sees' of the other.

-Tom


Some of the things you wrote which sparked me off.......not that there wasn't more.....but where to begin? Focus.....

well, I have recently looked at some proton collision experiments reported by CERN, and see that the hadrons (virtual mass carrying particles which exist only for very short timespaces) radiate in three groups, which are related to the two quarks and the gluon which holds the quarks together. The rays are quite distinct, emanate from the collision center, are at right angles to the direction of the impact, and roughly divide the plane of radiation into six regions, each of which is lobe-shaped, but the lobes are symetrical in the common plane. The regions are defined by three sets of hadrons, and between each set is a relitively empty defining area, so the six regions are defined by three regions with hadrons and three regions without hadrons.

Clearly at this fundamental level there is not a spherical radiation, but instead three well-defined individual rays at right angles to the direction of impact. I will have to search for the link. I didn't find it right off in my favorites, but I am sure I saved it somewhere.

So, on the macroscopic scale your logic is correct, but on the fundamental scale, something else is happening. Two gold nuclei smashed together at near light speed produce a spherical radient event just as you describe, but when two individual protons are collided, we see that the results of the collision are not spherical.

I am interested in this microcosmic production of rays. Surely it must show something about spacetime geometry. Protons are huge compared to the Planck scale. It is rather startling that such "large" events can have such a defined geometry. One might expect that some chaotic effects would intervene between the Planck scale at 10E-33 cm and the proton scale at 10E-9 cm. But evidently (by the evidence of Cern's proton collisions) spacetime below the order of 10E-10 cm must be quite regular, which seems in conflict with the idea of a quantum froth.

I don't seek definition except to improve clarity. At some point in every definition there is a self-limiting conflict. What is the use of getting involved in the fable of the snake swallowing its own tail? Instead, I look for the tangents to the snake-swallowing act. The snakes are ever tiny and they seem to spin and spin.

True and False form a set in every definition. There is always a contrary set. Godel seems to imply that no internally consistant set can prove its own validity. Then the next thought is, can two conflicting sets prove each other? After all, there must be something going on, or what's the conflict?

At this stage in my thought, that is enough. Basta! I leave the sophmoric dialog and go out into the enfumed night alone. What are the stars?

nc 477

__________________
Richard T. Harbaugh,
Nightcleaner

Last edited by Richard T. Harbaugh on 02-26-2005 at 01:41 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-26-2005 01:36 AM
Richard T. Harbaugh is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Richard T. Harbaugh Click here to Send Richard T. Harbaugh a Private Message Click Here to Email Richard T. Harbaugh Visit Richard T. Harbaugh's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Richard T. Harbaugh
Independent researcher
Two Harbors, Minnesota

Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 15

Originally posted by janos
You wrote: "if I create a carbon copy of myself, will my consciousness somehow seep into that carbon copy? "

It was already discussed in the 60's last century by Stanislaw Lem. Here is a link to it.

http://www.lem.pl/english/dziela/dziela.htm


And, since this has come up again, the use of the idea of seepage is revealing. What seeps? A liquid or a gas may be said to seep. A single solid indivisible "irreducible" object cannot seep, can it? Maybe it can tunnel.

The idea of seepage suggests that the item seeping can be divided without changing its essential charactor. Water can seep through a wall. Some of it gets through, some of it remains behind, some of it is in the wall, but it is still water.

Can identity be divided, replicated, teleported, created or destroyed? In my opinion, humbly, identity can or can not do any or all of these things. Make up your own rules, and live with the consequences.

Richard

__________________
Richard T. Harbaugh,
Nightcleaner

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 02-26-2005 01:49 AM
Richard T. Harbaugh is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Richard T. Harbaugh Click here to Send Richard T. Harbaugh a Private Message Click Here to Email Richard T. Harbaugh Visit Richard T. Harbaugh's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives