8 ms·

>There's a section in The Janus Point where he goes into detail about the fact that there are parts of the cosmos that (due to cosmic inflation) are farther apa

>There's a section in The Janus Point where he goes into detail about the fact that there are parts of the cosmos that (due to cosmic inflation) are farther apart in terms of light-years than the universe is old, and growing in separation faster than c, meaning that they are forever causally separated. There will never be future changes in state from one that result in effects in the other. In a way, this also relates to computation, maybe akin to some kind of undecidability. Ho, I love this hint. However even taking for granted that no faster than light travel is indeed an absolute rule of the universe, that doesn't exclude wormhole, or entangled particles. https://scitechdaily.com/faster-than-the-speed-of-light-information-transfer-through-spooky-action-at-a-distance-at-the-large-hadron-collider/ https://scitechdaily.com/faster-than-the-speed-of-light-info...

nyrikki 2y ago
It would be nice if this was a problem with decidablity, but often it is a problem with indeterminacy that is way stronger than classic chaos. The speed of causality or I information is the limit that is the speed of light. Even in the case of entanglement, useful information is not ftl, If I write true on one piece of paper and false on another and randomly seed them to Sue and Bob, Sue instantly knows what Bob has as soon as she opens hers. While we teach QM similar to how it was discovered, there are less mystical interpretations that are still valid. Viewing wave function collapse as updating priors vs observer effects works but is pretty boring. While wormholes are a prediction of the theory, we don't know if the map matches the territory yet. But it is a reason to look for them. But if we do find them it is likely that no useful information will survive the transit through them. Kerr's rebuke of Hawkings assumption that black hole singularities are anything more than a guess from a very narrow interpretation of probably unrealistic, non rotating, non charged black holes is probably a useful read. The map simply isn't the territory, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't see how good that map is or look for a better one.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  Kerr's paper that was referenced above. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841 https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841

nyrikki 2y ago

It would be nice if this was a problem with decidablity, but often it is a problem with indeterminacy that is way stronger than classic chaos. The speed of causality or I information is the limit that is the speed of light. Even in the case of entanglement, useful information is not ftl, If I write true on one piece of paper and false on another and randomly seed them to Sue and Bob, Sue instantly knows what Bob has as soon as she opens hers. While we teach QM similar to how it was discovered, there are less mystical interpretations that are still valid. Viewing wave function collapse as updating priors vs observer effects works but is pretty boring. While wormholes are a prediction of the theory, we don't know if the map matches the territory yet. But it is a reason to look for them. But if we do find them it is likely that no useful information will survive the transit through them. Kerr's rebuke of Hawkings assumption that black hole singularities are anything more than a guess from a very narrow interpretation of probably unrealistic, non rotating, non charged black holes is probably a useful read. The map simply isn't the territory, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't see how good that map is or look for a better one.

nyrikki 2y ago
Kerr's paper that was referenced above. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841 https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841