[ExI] QT and SR

Mike Dougherty msd001 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 16 20:21:40 UTC 2008

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> For example, imagine an incredibly large finite integer as a binary string that is 10^46 bits long. Now imagine I add 1 to that integer, what happens? That huge binary string grows by a single bit which becomes a 1, while the other 10^46 bits become zeroes:
> {11111 . . . 10^46 . . . 11111} + {1} = {10000 . . . 10^46+1 . . .00000}
> How long did that take?
> Now imagine that that binary string of ones is written in the tiniest font imaginable -- merely one Planck length wide. Written on space-time, the big binary integer would stretch the distance between Earth and the Sun. So now when I add a 1 to it, an additional 1 bit gets added to the end of the string near the sun and the rest of the bits from the earth to the sun become zeroes. . . instaneously! Even though if Superman used his supervision to watch that distant bit change, he would have to wait 8 long minutes for the information to arrive.

This reminds me of the topological deformation question I think I
asked in this thread.  What you are describing sounds like a state
change without a propagation from one state to another.  I was
thinking about photon being related to electron shells in discrete
units - it either exists in one state or another, but there is no 'in
between' - or is that a probability of indeterminate states?  If a
probability, then does the probability move toward a state, or does
the eventual state reflect the outcome of a wave collapse?

To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any difference in
Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
(non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  I'll stop here now
because if you're with me, then you are probably capable of refuting
this point; if not then no further examples make sense anyway.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list