[ExI] QT and SR

[Lee Corbin]

Mike writes

> 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. . . instantaneously!

Yes, "instantaneously"!     ;-)

>  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.

I already expressed to Stuart that all this seemed to me
an improper mixing of the abstract and a supposed-real
computation (involving "carry's" in addition, no less) that
might take place on some real computing device.

> 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?

Naturally, I can't address that because it involves concepts
which, to put it mildly, I don't understand at all, namely
"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 ?

I am not 100% sure I know what you are asking, but if
you are asking about one timeless "event" in platonia
(the universe of all possible patterns), where an integer
is supposed somehow to have value "99999999" and
then at some other place in platonia "it" (whatever is
remaining constant here is very mysterious to me)  has
the value "100000000" (i.e. one more), I don't know
how to connect that with any possible computing 
machinery that might exist in the space between the
Earth and the sun. One can merely say that in timeless
platonia all patterns already exist, including all the 
positive numbers like 99999999 and 100000000.

> 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 ?

Asking about peers brings in a lot of extra machinery,
from my point of view. To me, we are *no longer* 
talking about quantum mechanics or physics per se,
but whatever neural events may occur in the brains
of some very large evolutionarily derived Earth organisms.
Indeed, it seems folly to try to compare experiences 
between any two of these monstrously large human
beings, to say that somehow when one of them has
a (vast) experience involving billions of neurons (that
were perhaps set into motion by the result of what
the organism thought about certain photons collected
in its retina), and that it is comparable to some other
experiences of an entirely different organism also
involving billions of neurons.

> 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.

Yes, sorry, but I do think that people's experiences are not
at all that comparable. We're damned lucky that we can even 
both look up into the sky and agree that it's dark---although
if the conversation is allowed to proceed very long, exactly
how dark and exactly which points of light conceal the darkness
and by how much will lead to controversy, with one of us
reading one value of a spectrometer and another of us reading
an almost but not quite equal value.

Lee