Harmonizing Quantum physics with computational physics - Theory

On 10 Apr, 14:23, "erac...{}" <erac...{}> wrote:
> Hi all,
> (see my previous posts in the last 4 days in comp.ai.philosophy to
> understand this post).
> For aleph_null ---- it means cardinality of set of natural numbers
> aleph_one ---- cardinality of power set of natural numbers
> aleph_two --- cardinality of power set of power set of natural
> numbers
> and so on.
>
> Erach
>
> The modification I thought of Quantum physics:::
> Think of Turing Machines ---
> an aleph_null turing machine (that is our digital computer) halting
> problem
> can be solved by an aleph_one turing machine whose halting problem
> can be solved by an aleph_two turing machine whose halting problem
> can be solved by an aleph_three turing machine and so on.......
>
> Now physics has conjectured faster than light particles

Has it? It sounds very odd to me. Do you have any reference?

> ---- that is
> aleph_one
> what about aleph_two particles
> an
> aleph_three particles
> an
> aleph_four particles
> and so on.

I don't understand this. Can you explain please what is an aleph_one,
aleph_two, ... aleph_N particle?

> Ultimately, you have aleph_infinity particles

Inifinity isn't considered a number, ususally.

> now has quantum physics theorized this.

Is this a question or a claim?

> Erach
> ps. I am a Zoroastrian by descent and even now,
> the word "God" has its origins in "Khoda" which the Persian Knights
> took to Rome
> In Avesta (and in our names of God) the word Hervesp Khoda (God of
> all) is there.
> aleph_0, aleph_1 and so on stuck in my mind because aleph is an
> Iranian word (symbol is alpha) which is the first letter of the greek
> alphabet.
> Iranian language (Persian) goes aleph, be, pe, te, chim ---- or
> whatever but I remember aleph, and be

Aleph (or Alep) is the first letter of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet,
which is the ancestor of many modern alphabets.

On Tuesday 10 April 2007 11:54, Vend wrote:

> On 10 Apr, 14:23, "erac...{}" <erac...{}> wrote:
>> Now physics has conjectured faster than light particles
>
> Has it? It sounds very odd to me. Do you have any reference?

A tachyon is a hypothetical particle which travels faster than the
speed of light. Solving relativistic (not quantum) equations for
mass, etc. when v > c, you get imaginary mass and other oddities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

-paul-
--
Paul E. Black (p.black{}acm.org)

Vend wrote:
[...] I am a Zoroastrian by descent and even now,
>> the word "God" has its origins in "Khoda" which the Persian Knights
>> took to Rome
[...]

"God" is a germanic word, ultimately derived from an indogermanic root
*ghu-, "worship, invoke, call upon." Khoda may derive from the same
root, but it is not the source of 'god'.

[An asterisk in front of a word or root indicates a best guess of the
form of that word or root, based on known regularities in the phonetic
and grammatical changes of words.]

--

Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

On 10 Apr 2007 05:23:23 -0700, "erach27{}" <erach27{}>
wrote:

>Hi all,
>(see my previous posts in the last 4 days in comp.ai.philosophy to
>understand this post).
>For aleph_null ---- it means cardinality of set of natural numbers
>aleph_one ---- cardinality of power set of natural numbers
>aleph_two --- cardinality of power set of power set of natural
>numbers
>and so on.
>
>Erach
>
>The modification I thought of Quantum physics:::
>Think of Turing Machines ---
>an aleph_null turing machine (that is our digital computer) halting
>problem
>can be solved by an aleph_one turing machine whose halting problem
>can be solved by an aleph_two turing machine whose halting problem
>can be solved by an aleph_three turing machine and so on.......
>


Erach, read the following very slowly:

You are claiming that the halting problem can be solved by a Turing
maching with memory locations that are uncountable. This is how you
would do it in order to convince us. You would write a proof. The
proof would go like so: You create an *Effective Procedure* which
demonstrates that the Turing Machine can determine the halting ability
of any program of length n bytes. If you do not know what an
*Effective Procedure* is, and you do not know how to write a proof via
*Effective Procedure* then you need to turn off your computer and go
read books on mathematical logic. After you have figured out what an
*Effective Procedure* is and then how to write proofs that use them,
then and only then should you come back to newsgroups and start making
claims.

I'm sorry to say this is how the game of Math is played. If you If
you do not like these little "rules" that I'm giving to you, then you
should stop studying math and stop making claims about math on
newsgroups.

HMSBeagle wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 05:23:23 -0700, "erach27{}" <erach27{}>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> (see my previous posts in the last 4 days in comp.ai.philosophy to
>> understand this post).
>> For aleph_null ---- it means cardinality of set of natural numbers
>> aleph_one ---- cardinality of power set of natural numbers
>> aleph_two --- cardinality of power set of power set of natural
>> numbers
>> and so on.
>>
>> Erach
>>
>> The modification I thought of Quantum physics:::
>> Think of Turing Machines ---
>> an aleph_null turing machine (that is our digital computer) halting
>> problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_one turing machine whose halting problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_two turing machine whose halting problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_three turing machine and so on.......
>>
>
>
> Erach, read the following very slowly:
>
> You are claiming that the halting problem can be solved by a Turing
> maching with memory locations that are uncountable. This is how you
> would do it in order to convince us. You would write a proof. The
> proof would go like so: You create an *Effective Procedure* which
> demonstrates that the Turing Machine can determine the halting ability
> of any program of length n bytes. If you do not know what an
> *Effective Procedure* is, and you do not know how to write a proof via
> *Effective Procedure* then you need to turn off your computer and go
> read books on mathematical logic. After you have figured out what an
> *Effective Procedure* is and then how to write proofs that use them,
> then and only then should you come back to newsgroups and start making
> claims.
>
> I'm sorry to say this is how the game of Math is played. If you If
> you do not like these little "rules" that I'm giving to you, then you
> should stop studying math and stop making claims about math on
> newsgroups.
>

Charles Bennett is the guy often quoted about reversible computation.

www.research.ibm.com/people/b/bennetc/TM2.pdf

"Thus there is no general technique for solving all instances of the
halting problem, even though specific cases can often be decided easily
(eg Fig 1). Turing went on to ask what would happen if a universal
machine were enhanced by a hypothetical agency, or oracle, able to
supply correct values for h(x,y), and showed that the enhanced machine’s
halting problem would remain unsolvable even with the help of the
oracle; repeating this argument one obtains an infinite hierarchy of
unsolvable problems."

HMSBeagle wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 05:23:23 -0700, "erach27{}" <erach27{}>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> (see my previous posts in the last 4 days in comp.ai.philosophy to
>> understand this post).
>> For aleph_null ---- it means cardinality of set of natural numbers
>> aleph_one ---- cardinality of power set of natural numbers
>> aleph_two --- cardinality of power set of power set of natural
>> numbers
>> and so on.
>>
>> Erach
>>
>> The modification I thought of Quantum physics:::
>> Think of Turing Machines ---
>> an aleph_null turing machine (that is our digital computer) halting
>> problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_one turing machine whose halting problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_two turing machine whose halting problem
>> can be solved by an aleph_three turing machine and so on.......
>>
>
>
> Erach, read the following very slowly:
>
> You are claiming that the halting problem can be solved by a Turing
> maching with memory locations that are uncountable. This is how you
> would do it in order to convince us. You would write a proof. The
> proof would go like so: You create an *Effective Procedure* which
> demonstrates that the Turing Machine can determine the halting ability
> of any program of length n bytes. If you do not know what an
> *Effective Procedure* is, and you do not know how to write a proof via
> *Effective Procedure* then you need to turn off your computer and go
> read books on mathematical logic. After you have figured out what an
> *Effective Procedure* is and then how to write proofs that use them,
> then and only then should you come back to newsgroups and start making
> claims.
>
> I'm sorry to say this is how the game of Math is played. If you If
> you do not like these little "rules" that I'm giving to you, then you
> should stop studying math and stop making claims about math on
> newsgroups.
>

The part of his post that you quoted above is already known,
and I've read it more than once and posted about "relativizing".
Technically, all TMs are not realizable physically, but there
is already a hierarchical theoretical chain for hypercomputation.
Perhaps he didn't express quite properly in terms of natural
numbers, I don't know that the power set of natural numbers
is real numbers, but using the chain of alephs is Ok.

It is his claims after what you quoted that are unsubstantiated.

On 10 Apr, 18:52, "Paul E. Black" <p.bl...{}acm.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 11:54, Vend wrote:
>
> > On 10 Apr, 14:23, "erac...{}" <erac...{}> wrote:
> >> Now physics has conjectured faster than light particles
>
> > Has it? It sounds very odd to me. Do you have any reference?
>
> A tachyon is a hypothetical particle which travels faster than the
> speed of light. Solving relativistic (not quantum) equations for
> mass, etc. when v > c, you get imaginary mass and other oddities.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

I had heard of Tachyons before, but I thought that they were only
hypothetical particles that arise from some versions of string
theories, and actually they are considered by some an undesiderable
property of these theories.

Challenge to Don and Michael: QM in the Brain'

> Why should we not ask for a modification in quantum theory to explain
> life and consciousness.
Cuz Holly Quantum Theory is untouchable and undoubtable
Heard of Stapp? He modified QM to account for some experiments, it
wasn't received well at all.
Not long ago we discussed these experiments on comp.ai.philosopy, see
'Challenge to Don and Michael: QM in the Brain' thread. Experiment is
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html
and standard QM doesn't explain these results.
Don concluded with:
'Your whining has caused me to waste my time exploring the details of
shoddy work, just like I expected from my original metalevel comments.
In addition, it diminishes any future expectation that you personally
can bring any worthwhile content to this discussion, as you've now
been
shown to be willing to waste my time on trash.'


> I read that nano-particles (quite huge bucky balls or fullerenes
> actually) demonstrate wave effects in interference experiments

OTHER LINKS TO READ:
http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/measurement.html

> I am still wondering how to program the quantum gates ----- but best of
> all make a leaking memory/cpu circuit and it will program itself.
According to Rakovic, this may be easier than we think.
Like, we may only need any ionic structure with 10^15 ions/cm^3 and we
get holographic quantum NN.

AFAIK no need for QM there, Maxwell equtations will do.
Or at least mcFadden says so.
Here's an easy reading link:
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2002/05/52674
and it links to this paper:
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf


2 attachments - Download all attachments
Papers_cim28.pdf214K View as HTML Download

heisenberg-chaitin-godel.pdf167K View as HTML Download
Read Chaitin numbers on wikipedia.
> Also, check out http://spacetimemotion.tripod.com for Space-Time-Motion therapy (that
> man, Dr Bhavasar can do tele-medicine ----- medicine from a distance
> without asking further questions over the phone).


Any specific emotion model?
Chris Lofting had one, based on i-ching... here:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/emote.html
And I think it's Clifford algebra.
Anyway, he came up with chip requirement.

Oracles (or quantum physics or Turing Machines) in several dimensions.

Well, Turing showed that even if there is an Oracle, it will only
solve in aleph_null dimension.

Well, you could always say quantum physics is like an Oracle.

Then in aleph_one dimension you have your own new quantum physics.
And
so on in aleph_two and aleph_three and etc. dimensions.

****
But the Observer in quantum physics ----- that is the interesting part
---- could it be the same Observer in aleph_null, and aleph_one, and
aleph_two, and aleph_three and so on.

Erach