[extropy-chat] Is simulation recursion a problem?
scerir
scerir at libero.it
Fri Sep 22 21:15:12 UTC 2006
George Dvorsky
> Or, are there computational options that could
> conceivably result in a virtually endless array
> of simulations (e.g. agonizingly slow clockspeeds,
> quantum computation, etc.)
It is perhaps interesting (generalizing the above)
to point out there is a (new) problem of 'emergences'
in physics [1]. The concept 'emergence' is close to
the concept 'simulation'.
In physics there are, since 1980, the so called bounds
of prof. Cirel'son (or Tsirelson). These bounds set 3
different mathematical domains (which also have a huge
physical meaning) for a specific (CHSH) correlation function
of measurement outcomes of certain physical variables
(or observables):
-'classical',
-'quantum',
-'super-quantum'.
In the 'classical' domain the absolute value of the bound
(for that correlation function) is < 2. In this domain
there are: determinism, commutativity of operators,
separability of classically 'entangled' systems, locality
(but not always, a sort of partial non-locality is also
possible), causality or no ftl signalling (but in theory
synchrons and tachyons are allowed [2]).
In the 'quantum' domain the absolute value of the bound
is < 2 2^1/2 . In this domain there are: indeterminism,
non commutativity of operators, non-separability of
quantum 'entangled' systems, non-locality in the sense
of non-local dynamics (see the Aharonov-Bohm effect),
(apparently) relativistic causality or no ftl signalling
(in any case, no *controllable* ftl signalling).
In the 'super-quantum' domain (it is well possible
to perform experiment about it, since it is nor just
a mathematical abstraction) the absolute value of the
bound is < 4. Not much is known about this level.
One of the few established things is a *stronger* non-locality
(stronger than the usual quantish non-locality). But
*very surprisingly* this even stronger non-locality seems
still to live in a peaceful coexistence with the relativistic
causality and with the no ftl signalling principle. (Not much
is known about the non-commutativity of operators, in this
'super-quantum' domain).
Now, it is well known that the 'classical' can be thought
as something emerging from the 'quantum'. It is also
possible that the 'quantum' may emerge from the
'super-quantum' domain.
No, I'm not saying here there is a simulation, in the
sense that the 'classical' is simulated by the 'quantal'
reality, which in turn is simulated by some 'super-quantum'
level. (One could even reverse the arrow of the above,
during a trip of solipsism! [4]).
I'm just saying that the physical picture might be
more smoky than the usual mathematical recursion.
And I'm saying that the physical picture (those 3 domains,
and relations between them) may be much more meaningful
if we look at it using different concepts (like complexity,
measures, bits) instead of the old ones. (In this case we
would not see something like 'agonizingly slow clockspeeds',
but something like 'increasing difficult communications'.)
I think the above is obscure enough to stop here.
s.
[1]
There are several new models about fundamental
'emergences'. See, ie, Smolin and his cosmo-dynamics,
as the source of quantum non-locality
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609109 .
See also Adler's book about quantum mechanics
as emerging from a pre-quantum 'trace dynamics'
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206120 .
(In general these approaches consider problems
like 'contextuality', hidden variables, etc.).
[2]
See the paper 'Wigner Classification for Galilei
Poincaré Euclid ...' in the page
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/Index.htm
[3]
There are several problems here. In example
Bohr's correspondence principle (classic =
quantum in the limit of h ->0) is not a
valid one. Much better is a coarse-graining approach
like http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609079 .
After papers by Legett and Garg there are
several problems also with the empirical
consistency of concepts like 'macro-realism',
and the like.
[4]
"Nature is earlier than man,
but man is earlier than natural science."
-Von Weizsaecker
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list