Re: The Usual Heinlein Thing

dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:24 pm, thro...@xxxxxxxxx (Wayne Throop) wrote:

:: You should try reading the thread before leaping wildly to conclusions.

: "dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx" <dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx>
: I did, idiot.

Apparently, in reading the thread, you missed several references like these:
(especially the latter two of these)

Message-ID: <47CD43DD.4050...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
note I said "EXACT" location, "EXACT" velocities and energies.
I.e., no error anywhere in the system at start, as opposed to the
real-world situation, where you simply cannot know those things to
zero error even for ONE particle

Message-ID: <47CD5658.80...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
my basic proposition was to assume I *could* know all that. It's
irrelevant that I can't actually do that, since I've already
conceded that I can't do it in this universe.

Message-ID:
<e7d8ad6d-ef92-4650-85b2-393138b44...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
even in a classical universe

Message-ID: <Xns9A57A328FA3CEgenewardsmithsbcg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You were postulating someone who knew the positions and motions of
everything exactly in a Newtonian universe.

Therefore, pointing out quantum effects is rather beside the point.
One might almost say, irrelevant to anybody who's read the thread,
since they'd been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Possibly, you were assuming "presume I know what I can't know in a quantum
universe, but nevertheless the universe is quantum so it will be undone
the next instant", or similar, and missed the subsequent clarifications.

Or put annother way, yes, one could say indeterminacy of outcome is
somehow unrelated to uncertainty, so even if you solve the one you've
got the other, but thing is, there's neither of those in a classical
and/or newtonian universe.

Wayne Throop thro...@xxxxxxxxx http://sheol.org/throopw


Sigh. READ THE DAMN QUOTE.

No, he's got it right. You have it wrong. I assumed -- rather explicitly -- nonexistence of the quantum effects.


----begin----

In any case, isn't it true that in point of fact you wouldn't
actually need the universe of real numbers to perform Mentor's work?
IIRC, there's a minimum size of spacetime itself (my brain's throwing
up something called "Planck length"?) somewhere down around 10^-42
meters? Which would mean that down at that level, it would be a
pixelated (well, voxelated) universe, with a finite number of possible
values for any movement, acceleration, etc., the particle could
undergo.

----end----

Note, very explicitly, the term "Planck Length". How is it derived?
By manipulating the fundamental constants, one of which is - get this
- Planck's constant, which is fundamental to quantum mechanics,
quantum indeterminacy, etc. No Plancks' constant means no Planck
Length.

But that's irrelevant; I wasn't using the constant for a discussion of quantum effects, but of spacetime graininess. I don't do quantum. Relativity is ludicrous enough as it is without introducing the Great Old One insanity of QM.

I was simply using a component of our knowledge that seemed to indicate that you could have a finite limit to the minimum size of any particle coordinate system.

Substitute "Grainyspace Constant" for "Planck Constant" if the name gets your drawers in a knot.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On absolute units
    ... THE COSMIC QUANTUM-UNITS and THE PLANCK UNITS. ... THE PLANCK QUANTITIES. ... collapses when we try to analyse the early Universe. ... elementary length, the 'quantum of length' r, the elementary time, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Cosmological Quantum Units and Plancks Units
    ... THE COSMIC QUANTUM-UNITS and THE PLANCK UNITS. ... a unit of length l, a unit of time tand a unit of mass m, ... collapses when we try to analyse the early Universe. ... elementary length, the 'quantum of length' r, the elementary time, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What did Planck do?
    ... If Michelson/ Morley quantum of light, ... Therefore, in order to save the Universe from death, ... Planck decided that the Michelson/ Morley quantum ... radiation passes through it and none is reflected. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Computability in principle
    ... >>There are about 10^80 particles in the known Universe. ... The time to get through a proton has *nothing* to do with the Planck length (and ... Fergus noted that the world is quantum, and Erann Gatt summarized that he will ... (But, besides, it is KNOWN that quantum computation works in toy cases.) ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: What if the Big Bang happened again?
    ... quantum effects. ... So you're saying that randomness is a physical property of the ... It's hard to believe that the universe is inherently random. ... Quantum physics is inherently ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading