Neo 1061 wrote: > > On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 10:59:59 +0200, Nico Benschop > <email@example.com> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:
What is a 'tribble', and if it squeakes, what does that mean..?
> >[*]: Who does'nt hate the increase of Entropy ? > > (there is no lossless process in Nature, except light-propagation;-) > > http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm > > Here's something interesting. I came up with what seems to be a proof > that if the universe is deterministic and its evolution computable, > then entropy is constant.
'Proof' is based on transitive closure, hence your result is self- fulfilling (resulting from axioms & method): [..old stuff, fairly irrelevant, based on a non-realistic model..;-] [ Entropy (chaos) increases generally: my foot. [ So what are YOU doing here?-) Certainly a local aberration...] [ Structure increases globally, seems to be more realistic, but HOW? ] > [ The more interesting stuff comes next, allowing the thought of [ the future to have influence on the present: "anti-causal"...:-] [ This very old Greek(?) idea does have value. Essential question: [ _Where_ do your idea's come from ? -- especially the creative ones.] [ BTW: what the hell are you doing in sci.math, with this open mind [ attitude? You'll be dismissed as a crank in no time: Good for you! ] > > Of course our everyday observation is increasing entropy. > This is unlikely to be a curious local phenomenon, > so the universe's forward evolution is probably not computable.
Probably? Certainly! How about computing you and me, starting with a hot gas cloud...
Creative structure building is as natural a process as gravity, I bet. At the Univ. Twente (NL) some people developed an anti-entopy model, based on non-elastic (lossy) collisions between particles: Just by shaking (not stirring;-) a mass of bicycle bullets (fiets kogeltjes) that are initially equally distributed over bins, a final state arises with all kogeltjes in just ONE bin ! Funny, the Maxwell demon DOES exist, and its name is (creative) FRICTION...
> That is intriguing because it > allows things in the universe to do what Turing machines cannot, and > many annoying limitations (halting problem, Godel incompleteness) > are perhaps escapable as a result. (Godel incompleteness applies > to deductive reasoning, noted for its being mechanizable, and thus > relates in some deep way to computability.)
At a philisofical & common-sense level, Godel's result came surpisingly late, just saying that every theory (as transitive closure of a finite set of axioms, using logic/causality as generating principle) has its context. Viz: TRUTH is relative to your assumptions (axioms), and math in particular does not yield anything really NEW beyond their transitive closure.
> If it is, then it's > probably gotta be infinite, and the second law doesn't matter. The > universe has infinitely far to fall before heat death. Otherwise, it > isn't deterministic. Free will *drool*. If it's nondeterministic it > might fail to be stochastically modelable. So much for the second law > then, since it is a probabilistic statement with such a hidden > assumption.
Vive les hidden assumptions! Example: the ONLY perpetuum mobile in Nature is light-propagation (viz: lossless; equivalent to another hidden assumption: interstellar space is PURE VACUUM, not depriving fotons travelling for billions of lightyears of ANY energy at all... hence the Doppler expansion to explain the Redshift, and by time reversal: the Big Bang (=Christian biblical model: Begin --> End;-) Notice that magic (& unreal) LOSSLESS axiom, counter even to any SCIENTIFIC attitude, closing your eyes to what you don't like, so it does not exist. Each Natural process DOES loose eventually its inital purpose/impetus: I bet the lifetime of an electron, proton, foton is finite: death by friction. But: they again arise, come to life, by a process with enough chaos that exceeds a certain TRHESHOLD : non-linear creative process, like the lossy collisons between bicyle 'fiets kogeltjes' (ball-baring balls?-)
Good old Fred Hoyle will have a longer life than expected, once the creative anti-entopy process of structure building frictive collision process is better understood. How about the Cosmic Background Noise: the light traveling in (great) circles in the Universe, creating plenty new electrons (= closed foton, with double-twisted donut structure *) to replace those that died of old age (*): J.Williamson, M. van der Mark: "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" in: Annales de Fondation L.de Broglie, V22, N2 (1997) p133-160.
> The universe could also be acausal. (It probably is, in fact.) > There goes the second law again -- an acausal but > self-consistent universe can be forced by boundary conditions to > contain surprising events (highly improbable seeming a priori, but > caused by a future cause) -- read Robert Forward's Timemaster if you > don't believe me. (Sorry, no evil Amazon URLs, but your local library > is likely to have it -- mine does.) Otherwise, entropy is constant, > and no futile heat death. (That doesn't matter much if there's a big > crunch of course. And this finite deterministic computable universe > will just mechanically enter a loop and start repeating configurations. > Maybe heat death is better than that species of Hell. > But I don't believe it for a second -- consciousness looks > suspiciously non-computable thus far, and causality is suspect.)
[Now comes the interesting part;-] > > OK, anyone wondering why I consider causality suspect? Firstly, it's > up there with gravitation and such in the list of laws of nature, but > the justifications for it tend to be philosophical. Also, it's widely > disbelieved, unlike, say, gravitation. Most mythologies and belief > systems in the world have a healthy dose of the teleological. > Teleology is shunned by scientists because it's a problem for being > able to make repeatable experiments and the like, of course. As a > result, causality seems to be justified mainly because it's tidy. It's > also clearly approximately true: the events of our everyday lives are > generally patterned into cause followed by effect. It lets us make > useful predictions. Yet physics at its most fundamental consists > mainly of time-symmetric processes. The one process that isn't > time-symmetric is the mysterious collapse of the quantum wavefunction, > and that seems to occur without a preceding cause.
Or any lossy process: entropy / chaos increasing: the arrow of time... So if you don't like that (loss) then ignore it, hence the still extremely popular group theory (=invertable processes: conservation of rank, vs. rank-decreasing algebra in general: semigroups -- http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0103112 )
> Particles decay spontaneously,
... and I bet: even electrons & protons have a finite lifetime.
> and the Big Bang has no preceding cause because there > was no "preceding" at all! If one accepts that some events lack a > cause, causality is called into question. If one demands that every > event has a cause, at least one (the Big Bang) must have its cause lie > in its own future and the illusion of causality is shattered. Why then > do our everyday lives suggest causality? Some causal patterns exist -- > past causes and future consequences. These are those observations. > Those consequences that preceded their cause are dismissed as > "spontaneous" and modeled as environmental noise. Unfortunately, > modeling them as noise doesn't explain them away and perhaps is a > crutch that holds progress back.
On the fundamental principle of Threshold: "Everything is so clear & logical" (after Analog-->Digital conversion;-) The logic of the courtroom: answer with yes or no, please (and forget about the environmental conditions: 'Law' as a binary A/D coverter)
> Any "noise" should have a hidden variable explanation. > The uncertainties in the weather forecast are because of the butterfly > effect acting on the smaller uncertainties in our observations.
But notice in all those satellite pictures: the recurring 'galactic' spiral structures (around a depression, in NL always coming via UK;-( Could an electron be a spiralling ether-whirl? (*)
> The positions and momenta and other info on tons of > atoms and molecules are the hidden variables behind the weather > forecast noise. But what of the quantum noise? Spontaneous decays, > Heisenberg uncertainty and its consequences? Heisenberg uncertainty > was shown early on to be fundamental, not a failure of resolving power > of instrumentation. Now we know that none of the quantum fuzziness can > be explained by hidden variables, even fundamentally unmeasurable > ones, because of the Bell's Inequality results. Not causally, that is. > Causality is assumed in the argument against hidden variables. Maybe > the fuzziness can be explained in terms of a future state that is > unknown, and a feedback loop in time, though. Consider this. In an > EPR experiment, measuring a particle spin collapses the wavefunction > nonlocally. In some sense, it fixes that spin through history, as well > as that of the other entangled particle. It's like something reached > back and "filled in the blanks" to make the book of the universe a > self-consistent story, starting with the particles' entanglement and > ending with the measurements made on them. Sure, EPR phenomena seem > unusable to macroscopically violate causality, but then again, isn't > that just semantic quibbling? It sure seems to have been violated > microscopically, whether it has been macroscopically or not! > -- Neo 1061
Keep speculating, something may blossom out of it, after all. It's not the answers that count, but the questions... Answers condense into Form, Questions explore beyond (present) form.