Some modern cosmological models predict the appearance of Boltzmann Brains: observers who randomly fluctuate out of a thermal bath rather than naturally evolving from a low-entropy Big Bang. A theory in which most observers are of the Boltzmann Brain type is generally thought to be unacceptable, although opinions differ. I argue that such theories are indeed unacceptable: the real problem is with fluctuations into observers who are locally identical to ordinary observers, and their existence cannot be swept under (...) the rug by a choice of probability distributions over observers. The issue is not that the existence of such observers is ruled out by data, but that the theories that predict them are cognitively unstable: they cannot simultaneously be true and justifiably believed. (shrink)

ABSTRACT. Two arguments have recently been advanced that Maxwell-Boltzmann particles are indistinguishable just like Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac particles. Bringing modal metaphysics to bear on these arguments shows that ontological indistinguishability for classical (MB) particles does not follow. The first argument, resting on symmetry in the occupation representation for all three cases, fails since peculiar correlations exist in the quantum (BE and FD) context as harbingers of ontic indistinguishability, while the indistinguishability of classical particles remains purely epistemic. The second argument, (...) deriving from the classical limits of quantum statistical partition functions, embodies a conceptual confusion. After clarifying the doctrine of haecceitism, a third argument is considered that attempts to deflate metaphysical concerns altogether by showing that the phase-space and distribution-space representations of MB-statistics have contrary haecceitistic import. Careful analysis shows this argument to fail as well, leaving de re modality unproblematically grounding particle identity in the classical context while genuine puzzlement about the underlying ontology remains for quantum statistics. (shrink)

Leading cosmological theories engender a controversial puzzle which has prompted philosophers to propose competing epistemological solutions and physicists to propose methodological changes to cosmology. The puzzle arises from the prediction that every brain on Earth will eventually be vastly outnumbered by physical duplicates formed by random collisions of particles in outer space. Supposing that this prediction is correct, shouldn't you believe that your brain is probably one of these vastly more typical extraterrestrial brains, since you cannot infer your brain's origin (...) from your experiential state? But supposing that your brain is one of these extraterrestrial brains, why be confident in the cosmological theories, since you never actually received testimony supporting these theories? Proposals in the literature either deny the rationality of believing theories that make the prediction or deny the typicality of your brain among its duplicates. This paper argues that these proposals are not entirely satisfactory. Instead, one should be confident in theories making the prediction on the supposition that your brain is one of the extraterrestrial brains. The upshots include that it may be rational to believe that your brain is probably an extraterrestrial brain and that cosmologists should not alter their methodology in response to the puzzle. (shrink)

Abstract. Boltzmann brains (BBs) are minds which randomly appear as a result of thermodynamic or quantum fluctuations. In this article, the question of if we are BBs, and the observational consequences if so, is explored. To address this problem, a typology of BBs is created, and the evidence is compared with the Simulation Argument. Based on this comparison, we conclude that while the existence of a “normal” BB is either unlikely or irrelevant, BBs with some ordering may have observable (...) consequences. There are two types of such ordered BBs: Boltzmannian typewriters (including Boltzmannian simulations), and chains of observer moments. Notably, the existence or non-existence of BBs may have practical applications for measuring the size of the universe, achieving immortality, or even manipulating the observed probability of events. -/- Disclaimer and trigger warning: some people have emotional breakdowns when thinking about topics described in the article, especially the “flux universe”. However, everything eventually adds up to normality. (shrink)

I present a new thermodynamic argument for the existence of God. Naturalistic physics provides evidence for the failure of induction, because it provides evidence that the past is not at all what you think it is, and your existence is just a momentary fluctuation. The fact that you are not a momentary fluctuation thus provides evidence for the existence of God – God would ensure that the past is roughly what we think it is, and you have been in existence (...) for roughly the amount of time you think you have. I don’t have a definitive way for the atheist to refute this argument, but I give one suggestion that relies on physics-based simplicity considerations. I close with an epistemological discussion of self-undermining arguments. (shrink)

A Boltzmann Brain, haphazardly formed through the unlikely but still possible random assembly of physical particles, is a conscious brain having experiences just like an ordinary person. The skeptical possibility of being a Boltzmann Brain is an especially gripping one: scientific evidence suggests our actual universe’s full history may ultimately contain countless short-lived Boltzmann Brains with experiences just like yours or mine. I propose a solution to the skeptical challenge posed by these countless actual Boltzmann Brains. (...) My key idea is roughly this: the skeptical argument that you’re one of the Boltzmann Brains requires you to make a statistical inference, but the Principle of Total Evidence blocks us from making the inference. I discuss how my solution contrasts with a recent suggestion, made by Sean Carroll and David Chalmers, for how to address the skeptical challenge posed by Boltzmann Brains. And I discuss how my solution handles certain relevant concerns about what to do when we have higher-order evidence indicating that our first-order evidence is misleading. (shrink)

Some physical theories predict that almost all brains in the universe are Boltzmann brains, i.e. short-lived disembodied brains that are accidentally assembled as a result of thermodynamic or quantum fluctuations. Physicists and philosophers of physics widely regard this proliferation as unacceptable, and so take its prediction as a basis for rejecting these theories. But the putatively unacceptable consequences of this prediction follow only given certain philosophical assumptions. This paper develops a strategy for shielding physical theorizing from the threat of (...) Boltzmann brains. The strategy appeals to a form of phenomenal externalism about the physical basis of consciousness. Given that form of phenomenal externalism, the proliferation of Boltzmann brains turns out to be benign. While the strategy faces a psychophysical fine-tuning problem, it both alleviates cosmological fine-tuning concerns that attend physics-based solutions to Boltzmann brain problems and pays explanatory dividends in connection with time’s arrow. (shrink)

The success of a few theories in statistical thermodynamics can be correlated with their selectivity to reality. These are the theories of Boltzmann, Gibbs, and Einstein. The starting point is Carnot’s theory, which defines implicitly the general selection of reality relevant to thermodynamics. The three other theories share this selection, but specify it further in detail. Each of them separates a few main aspects within the scope of the implicit thermodynamic reality. Their success grounds on that selection. Those aspects (...) can be represented by corresponding oppositions. These are: macroscopic – microscopic; elements – states; relational – non-relational; and observable – theoretical. They can be interpreted as axes of independent qualities constituting a common qualitative reference frame shared by those theories. Each of them can be situated in this reference frame occupying a different place. This reference frame can be interpreted as an additional selection of reality within Carnot’s initial selection describable as macroscopic and both observable and theoretical. The deduced reference frame refers implicitly to many scientific theories independent of their subject therefore defining a general and common space or subspace for scientific theories (not for all). The immediate conclusion is: The examples of a few statistical thermodynamic theories demonstrate that the concept of “reality” is changed or generalized, or even exemplified (i.e. “de-generalized”) from a theory to another. Still a few more general suggestions referring the scientific realism debate can be added: One can admit that reality in scientific theories is some partially shared common qualitative space or subspace describable by relevant oppositions and rather independent of their subject quite different in general. Many or maybe all theories can be situated in that space of reality, which should develop adding new dimensions in it for still newer and newer theories. Its division of independent subspaces can represent the many-realities conception. The subject of a theory determines some relevant subspace of reality. This represents a selection within reality, relevant to the theory in question. The success of that theory correlates essentially with the selection within reality, relevant to its subject. (shrink)

Boltzmannian statistical mechanics partitions the phase space of a sys- tem into macro-regions, and the largest of these is identified with equilibrium. What justifies this identification? Common answers focus on Boltzmann’s combinatorial argument, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and maxi- mum entropy considerations. We argue that they fail and present a new answer. We characterise equilibrium as the macrostate in which a system spends most of its time and prove a new theorem establishing that equilib- rium thus defined corresponds to (...) the largest macro-region. Our derivation is completely general in that it does not rely on assumptions about a system’s dynamics or internal interactions. (shrink)

Genesis of the early quantum theory represented by Planck’s 1897-1906 papers is considered. It is shown that the first quantum theoretical schemes were constructed as crossbreed ones composed from ideal models and laws of Maxwellian electrodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. Ludwig Boltzmann’s ideas and technique appeared to be crucial. Deriving black-body radiation law Max Planck had to take the experimental evidence into account. It forced him not to deduce from phenomena but to use more theory instead. The (...) experiments forced Planck to apply the statistical technique to radiation in increasing portions. Planck’s theories in no way were generalizations of existing experimental results. They represented the stages of an ambitious programme of Maxwellian electrodynamics and statistical mechanics reconciliation. (shrink)

Gases reach equilibrium when left to themselves. Why do they behave in this way? The canonical answer to this question, originally proffered by Boltzmann, is that the systems have to be ergodic. This answer has been criticised on different grounds and is now widely regarded as flawed. In this paper we argue that some of the main arguments against Boltzmann's answer, in particular, arguments based on the KAM-theorem and the Markus-Meyer theorem, are beside the point. We then argue (...) that something close to Boltzmann's original proposal is true for gases: gases behave thermodynamic-like if they are epsilon-ergodic, i.e., ergodic on the entire accessible phase space except for a small region of measure epsilon. This answer is promising because there are good reasons to believe that relevant systems in statistical mechanics are epsilon-ergodic. (shrink)

Consider a gas confined to the left half of a container. Then remove the wall separating the two parts. The gas will start spreading and soon be evenly distributed over the entire available space. The gas has approached equilibrium. Why does the gas behave in this way? The canonical answer to this question, originally proffered by Boltzmann, is that the system has to be ergodic for the approach to equilibrium to take place. This answer has been criticised on different (...) grounds and is now widely regarded as flawed. In this paper we argue that these criticisms have dismissed Boltzmann’s answer too quickly and that something almost like Boltzmann’s answer is true: the approach to equilibrium takes place if the system is epsilon-ergodic, i.e. ergodic on the entire accessible phase space except for a small region of measure epsilon. We introduce epsilon-ergodicity and argue that relevant systems in statistical mechanics are indeed espsilon-ergodic. (shrink)

A comprehensible model is proposed aimed at an analysis of the reasons for theory change in science. According to the model the origins of scientific revolutions lie not in a clash of fundamental theories with facts, but of “old” fundamental theories with each other, leading to contradictions that can only be eliminated in a more general theory. The model is illustrated with reference to physics in the early 20th century, the three “old” theories in this case being Maxwellian electrodynamics, statistical (...) mechanics and thermodynamics. Modern example, referring to general relativity and quantum field theory fusion, is highlighted. Key words: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Stepin, Bransky,Mamchur, mature theory, structure, Einstein, Lorentz, , Boltzmann, Planck, Hawking, De Witt. (shrink)

Plausible assumptions from Cosmology and Statistical Mechanics entail that it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be exact duplicates of us in the distant future long after our deaths. Call such persons “Boltzmann duplicates,” after the great pioneer of Statistical Mechanics. In this paper, I argue that if survival of death is possible at all, then we almost surely will survive our deaths because there almost surely will be Boltzmann duplicates of us in the distant future that stand (...) in appropriate relations to us to guarantee our survival. (shrink)

I present a new argument that we are much more likely to be living in a computer simulation than in the ground-level of reality. (Similar arguments can be marshalled for the view that we are more likely to be Boltzmann brains than ordinary people, but I focus on the case of simulations.) I explain how this argument overcomes some objections to Bostrom’s classic argument for the same conclusion. I also consider to what extent the argument depends upon an internalist (...) conception of evidence, and I refute the common line of thought that finding many simulations being run—or running them ourselves—must increase the odds that we are in a simulation. GPI Working Paper No. 16-2021. (shrink)

The paper tries to demonstrate that the process of the increase of entropy does not explain the asymmetry of time itself because it is unable to account for its fundamental asymmetries, that is, the asymmetry of traces (we have traces of the past and no traces of the future), the asymmetry of causation (we have an impact on future events with no possibility of having an impact on the past), and the asymmetry between the fixed past and the open future, (...) To this end, the approaches of Boltzmann, Reichenbach (and his followers), and Albert are analysed. It is argued that we should look for alternative approaches instead of this, namely we should consider a temporally asymmetrical physical theory or seek a source of the asymmetry of time in metaphysics. This second approach may even turn out to be complementary if only we accept that metaphysics can complement scientific research programmes. (shrink)

The explicit history of the “hidden variables” problem is well-known and established. The main events of its chronology are traced. An implicit context of that history is suggested. It links the problem with the “conservation of energy conservation” in quantum mechanics. Bohr, Kramers, and Slaters (1924) admitted its violation being due to the “fourth Heisenberg uncertainty”, that of energy in relation to time. Wolfgang Pauli rejected the conjecture and even forecast the existence of a new and unknown then elementary particle, (...) neutrino, on the ground of energy conservation in quantum mechanics, afterwards confirmed experimentally. Bohr recognized his defeat and Pauli’s truth: the paradigm of elementary particles (furthermore underlying the Standard model) dominates nowadays. However, the reason of energy conservation in quantum mechanics is quite different from that in classical mechanics (the Lie group of all translations in time). Even more, if the reason was the latter, Bohr, Cramers, and Slatters’s argument would be valid. The link between the “conservation of energy conservation” and the problem of hidden variables is the following: the former is equivalent to their absence. The same can be verified historically by the unification of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics in the contemporary quantum mechanics by means of the separable complex Hilbert space. The Heisenberg version relies on the vector interpretation of Hilbert space, and the Schrödinger one, on the wave-function interpretation. However the both are equivalent to each other only under the additional condition that a certain well-ordering is equivalent to the corresponding ordinal number (as in Neumann’s definition of “ordinal number”). The same condition interpreted in the proper terms of quantum mechanics means its “unitarity”, therefore the “conservation of energy conservation”. In other words, the “conservation of energy conservation” is postulated in the foundations of quantum mechanics by means of the concept of the separable complex Hilbert space, which furthermore is equivalent to postulating the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics (directly deducible from the properties of that Hilbert space). Further, the lesson of that unification (of Heisenberg’s approach and Schrödinger’s version) can be directly interpreted in terms of the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics in the cherished “quantum gravity” as well as a “manual” of how one can do this considering them as isomorphic to each other in a new mathematical structure corresponding to quantum information. Even more, the condition of the unification is analogical to that in the historical precedent of the unifying mathematical structure (namely the separable complex Hilbert space of quantum mechanics) and consists in the class of equivalence of any smooth deformations of the pseudo-Riemannian space of general relativity: each element of that class is a wave function and vice versa as well. Thus, quantum mechanics can be considered as a “thermodynamic version” of general relativity, after which the universe is observed as if “outside” (similarly to a phenomenological thermodynamic system observable only “outside” as a whole). The statistical approach to that “phenomenological thermodynamics” of quantum mechanics implies Gibbs classes of equivalence of all states of the universe, furthermore re-presentable in Boltzmann’s manner implying general relativity properly … The meta-lesson is that the historical lesson can serve for future discoveries. (shrink)

In (Weaver 2021), I showed that Boltzmann’s H-theorem does not face a significant threat from the reversibility paradox. I argue that my defense of the H-theorem against that paradox can be used yet again for the purposes of resolving the recurrence paradox without having to endorse heavy-duty statistical assumptions outside of the hypothesis of molecular chaos. As in (Weaver 2021), lessons from the history and foundations of physics reveal precisely how such resolution is achieved.

A new trend in deep learning, represented by Mutual Information Neural Estimation (MINE) and Information Noise Contrast Estimation (InfoNCE), is emerging. In this trend, similarity functions and Estimated Mutual Information (EMI) are used as learning and objective functions. Coincidentally, EMI is essentially the same as Semantic Mutual Information (SeMI) proposed by the author 30 years ago. This paper first reviews the evolutionary histories of semantic information measures and learning functions. Then, it briefly introduces the author’s semantic information G theory with (...) the rate-fidelity function R(G) (G denotes SeMI, and R(G) extends R(D)) and its applications to multi-label learning, the maximum Mutual Information (MI) classification, and mixture models. Then it discusses how we should understand the relationship between SeMI and Shannon’s MI, two generalized entropies (fuzzy entropy and coverage entropy), Autoencoders, Gibbs distributions, and partition functions from the perspective of the R(G) function or the G theory. An important conclusion is that mixture models and Restricted Boltzmann Machines converge because SeMI is maximized, and Shannon’s MI is minimized, making information efficiency G/R close to 1. A potential opportunity is to simplify deep learning by using Gaussian channel mixture models for pre-training deep neural networks’ latent layers without considering gradients. It also discusses how the SeMI measure is used as the reward function (reflecting purposiveness) for reinforcement learning. The G theory helps interpret deep learning but is far from enough. Combining semantic information theory and deep learning will accelerate their development. (shrink)

This chapter will review selected aspects of the terrain of discussions about probabilities in statistical mechanics (with no pretensions to exhaustiveness, though the major issues will be touched upon), and will argue for a number of claims. None of the claims to be defended is entirely original, but all deserve emphasis. The first, and least controversial, is that probabilistic notions are needed to make sense of statistical mechanics. The reason for this is the same reason that convinced Maxwell, Gibbs, and (...) Boltzmann that probabilities would be needed, namely, that the second law of thermodynamics, which in its original formulation says that certain processes are impossible, must, on the kinetic theory, be replaced by a weaker formulation according to which what the original version deems impossible is merely improbable. Second is that we ought not take the standard measures invoked in equilibrium statistical mechanics as giving, in any sense, the correct probabilities about microstates of the system. We can settle for a much weaker claim: that the probabilities for outcomes of experiments yielded by the standard distributions are effectively the same as those yielded by any distribution that we should take as a representing probabilities over microstates. Lastly, (and most controversially): in asking about the status of probabilities in statistical mechanics, the familiar dichotomy between epistemic probabilities (credences, or degrees of belief) and ontic (physical) probabilities is insufficient; the concept of probability that is best suited to the needs of statistical mechanics is one that combines epistemic and physical considerations. (shrink)

This paper investigates the historical origin and ancestors of typicality, which is now a central concept in Boltzmannian Statistical Mechanics and Bohmian Mechanics. Although Ludwig Boltzmann did not use the word typicality, its main idea, namely, that something happens almost always or is valid for almost all cases, plays a crucial role for his explanation of how thermodynamic systems approach equilibrium. At the beginning of the 20th century, the focus on almost always or almost everywhere was fruitful for developing (...) measure theory and probability theory. It was apparently Hugh Everett III who first mentioned typicality in physics in 1957 while searching for a justification of the Born rule in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. The historically closest concept before these developments is moral certainty, which was invented by the medieval French theologian Jean Gerson, and it became a standard concept at least until the Age of Enlightenment, when Jakob Bernoulli proved the Law of Large numbers. (shrink)

I want to combine two hitherto largely independent research projects, scientific understanding and mechanistic explanations. Understanding is not only achieved by answering why-questions, that is, by providing scientific explanations, but also by answering what-questions, that is, by providing what I call scientific descriptions. Based on this distinction, I develop three forms of understanding: understanding-what, understanding-why, and understanding-how. I argue that understanding-how is a particularly deep form of understanding, because it is based on mechanistic explanations, which answer why something happens in (...) virtue of what it is made of. I apply the three forms of understanding to two case studies: first, to the historical development of thermodynamics and, second, to the differences between the Clausius and the Boltzmann entropy in explaining thermodynamic processes. (shrink)

The received wisdom in statistical mechanics is that isolated systems, when left to themselves, approach equilibrium. But under what circumstances does an equilibrium state exist and an approach to equilibrium take place? In this paper we address these questions from the vantage point of the long-run fraction of time definition of Boltzmannian equilibrium that we developed in two recent papers. After a short summary of Boltzmannian statistical mechanics and our definition of equilibrium, we state an existence theorem which provides general (...) criteria for the existence of an equilibrium state. We first illustrate how the theorem works with a toy example, which allows us to illustrate the various elements of the theorem in a simple setting. After a look at the ergodic programme, we discuss equilibria in a number of different gas systems: the ideal gas, the dilute gas, the Kac gas, the stadium gas, the mushroom gas and the multi-mushroom gas. In the conclusion we briefly summarise the main points and highlight open questions. (shrink)

Many philosophers have been attracted to a restricted version of the principle of indifference in the case of self-locating belief. Roughly speaking, this principle states that, within any given possible world, one should be indifferent between different hypotheses concerning who one is within that possible world, so long as those hypotheses are compatible with one’s evidence. My first goal is to defend a more precise version of this principle. After responding to several existing criticisms of such a principle, I argue (...) that existing formulations of the principle are crucially ambiguous, and I go on to defend a particular disambiguation of the principle. According to the disambiguation I defend, how we should apply this restricted principle of indifference sensitively depends on our background metaphysical beliefs. My second goal is to apply this disambiguated principle to classical skeptical problems in epistemology. In particular, I argue that Eternalism threatens to lead us to external world skepticism, and Modal Realism threatens to lead us to inductive skepticism. (shrink)

This is the text of Dr. Sterrett's replies to an interviewer's questions for simplycharly.com, a website with interviews by academics on various authors, philosophers, and scientists.

It is a remarkable fact that all processes occurring in the observable universe are irre- versible, whereas the equations through which the fundamental laws of physics are formu- lated are invariant under time reversal. The emergence of irreversibility from the funda- mental laws has been a topic of consideration by physicists, astronomers and philosophers since Boltzmann's formulation of his famous \H" theorem. In this paper we shall discuss some aspects of this problem and its connection with the dynamics of (...) space-time, within the framework of modern cosmology. We conclude that the existence of cosmological horizons allows a coupling of the global state of the universe with the local events deter- mined through electromagnetic processes. (shrink)

The success of a few theories in statistical thermodynamics can be correlated with their selectivity to reality. These are the theories of Boltzmann, Gibbs, end Einstein. The starting point is Carnot’s theory, which defines implicitly the general selection of reality relevant to thermodynamics. The three other theories share this selection, but specify it further in detail. Each of them separates a few main aspects within the scope of the implicit thermodynamic reality. Their success grounds on that selection. Those aspects (...) can be represented by corresponding oppositions. These are: macroscopic – microscopic; elements – states; relational – non-relational; and observable – theoretical. They can be interpreted as axes of independent qualities constituting a common qualitative reference frame shared by those theories. Each of them can be situated in this reference frame occupying a different place. This reference frame can be interpreted as an additional selection of reality within Carnot’s initial selection describable as macroscopic and both observable and theoretical. The deduced reference frame refers implicitly to many scientific theories independent of their subject therefore defining a general and common space or subspace for scientific theories (not for all). The immediate conclusion is: The examples of a few statistical thermodynamic theories demonstrate that the concept of “reality” is changed or generalized, or even exemplified (i.e. “de-generalized”) from a theory to another. Still a few more general suggestions referring the scientific realism debate can be added: One can admit that reality in scientific theories is some partially shared common qualitative space or subspace describable by relevant oppositions and rather independent of their subject quite different in general. Many or maybe all theories can be situated in that space of reality, which should develop adding new dimensions in it for still newer and newer theories. Its division of independent subspaces can represent the many-realities conception. The subject of a theory determines some relevant subspace of reality. This represents a selection within reality, relevant to the theory in question. The success of that theory correlates essentially with the selection within reality, relevant to its subject. (shrink)

Until the late 19th century scientists almost always assumed that the world could be described as a rule-based and hence deterministic system or as a set of such systems. The assumption is maintained in many 20th century theories although it has also been doubted because of the breakthrough of statistical theories in thermodynamics (Boltzmann and Gibbs) and other fields, unsolved questions in quantum mechanics as well as several theories forwarded within the social sciences. Until recently it has furthermore been (...) assumed that a rule-based and deterministic system was also predictable if only the rules were known, but this assumption has now been undermined by modern chaos-theory describing rule-based and deterministic, but unpredictable systems, while catastrophe-theory delivers a set of types describing various kinds of instability and conditions for the stability of a given system. Hence the main trait in the theoretical development in the 20th-century science can be described as a basic modification and limitation of some of the fundamental and strong assumptions forwarded in the previous epochs of modern science. Ironically, the very same process has been a process in which the human capacity to intervene in nature has expanded dramatically and mainly with the help of the very same theories, and not least because they allow nature to be described and made manipulable on a lower level and a more fine-grained scale. While the overall theoretical consistency between the various theories has gone, the reach of human intervention in nature has increased based on quite new dimensions whether in the area of physics (e.g.: energy technologies, chemical technologies, nanotechnologies etc.) or biology (ge¬netic manipulation) or in the area of psychology, sociology and culture (artificial simulations of mental processes, new means of communication, implying changes in the social infrastructure and cultural behaviour etc.). While some of these changes and new conditions can be reflected from within the conceptual framework of rule-based systems, albeit more complex than formerly recognized, others seem to give rise to the question of whether there are »systems« and relations between different systems in the world which are not rule-based? For instance, it seems to be obvious that the notion of instability represents a major conceptual break with former theories of rule-based systems, as the stability of the latter is an axiomatically given property implied in the very notion of rule-based systems, while instability can only be the result of external influence which should be explained as the result of another rule-based sy¬stem. While there are no difficulties implied concerning the stability of rule-based systems, the notion of unstable states of a system raises the question of how there can be a system at all if there are no invariant stabilising principles? This is the first question which I will address. And I shall do so by taking two examples of such systems as my point of departure. The first example will be the computer and the second will be ordinary language. In both cases I will argue that the stability of these systems (which are both defined by the existence/presence of human intentions) are provided by the help of - differently organised - redundancy functions which both allow the maintenance of systems in unstable macro-states, suspension of previous rules, underdetermination and overdetermination and generation/emergence/creation of new rules more or less independent of previous rules by the help of optional recursions to the permanently accessible underlying levels as for instance the level of binary representation in computers. Since the notion of redundancy is both controversial as such and often avoided, the concept is discussed (as defined in Claude Shannon's mathematical theory of information and in the semiotic framework of J. J. Greimas) and leading to a more general definition in which the redundancy functions serve to overcome noisy conditions, but at the cost of rule-based stability, determination, and predictability. A second question will be how the notion of rule-generating systems relates to the notion of anticipatory systems and it will be argued that rule-generating systems share some features with an¬ticipatory systems and that the former from a certain viewpoint can be seen as a subclass of the latter, although anticipative features are not necessarily a part of the definition of rule-generating systems. On the other hand, it will be discussed whether anticipatory systems which are not rule-generating systems can exist and it will be argued that the capacity to anticipate is strongly limited if it is not part of a rule-generating system. Therefore, it is concluded that the most powerful anticipatory systems need to be rule-generating systems. (shrink)

The model of scientific revolution genesis and structure, extracted from Einstein’s revolution and considered in my previous publications, is applied to the Copernican one . According to the model, Einstein’s revolution origins can be understood due to occurrence and partial resolution of the contradictions between main rival classical physics research programmes : newtonian mechanics, maxwellian electrodynamics, thermodynamics and Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics. In general the growth of knowledge consists in interaction, interpenetration and even unification of different scientific research programmes. It (...) is argued that the Copernican revolution also happened due to realization of a certain dualism – now between mathematical astronomy and Aristotelian qualitative physics in Ptolemy’s cosmology and the corresponding efforts to eliminate it. The works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all were the stages of the mathematics descendance from skies to earth and reciprocal extrapolation of earth physics on divine phenomena. Yet the very realization of the gap between physics and astronomy appeared to be possible because at least at its first stages modern science was a result of Christian Weltanschaugung development with its aspiration for elimination of pagan components. -/- Key words: scientific revolution, modernity, Christian Weltanschaugung, Copernicus, Ptolemy. (shrink)

What degrees of belief does Sleeping Beauty's evidence support? That depends.

The possibility of algorithmic consciousness depends on the assumption that conscious states can be copied or repeated by sufficiently duplicating their underlying physical states, leading to a variety of paradoxes, including the problems of duplication, teleportation, simulation, self-location, the Boltzmann brain, and Wigner’s Friend. In an effort to further elucidate the physical nature of consciousness, I challenge these assumptions by analyzing the implications of special relativity on evolutions of identical copies of a mental state, particularly the divergence of these (...) evolutions due to quantum fluctuations. By assuming the supervenience of a conscious state on some sufficient underlying physical state, I show that the existence of two or more instances, whether spacelike or timelike, of the same conscious state leads to a logical contradiction, ultimately refuting the assumption that a conscious state can be physically reset to an earlier state or duplicated by any physical means. Several explanatory hypotheses and implications are addressed, particularly the relationships between consciousness, locality, physical irreversibility, and quantum no-cloning. (shrink)

The paper investigates the understanding of quantum indistinguishability after quantum information in comparison with the “classical” quantum mechanics based on the separable complex Hilbert space. The two oppositions, correspondingly “distinguishability / indistinguishability” and “classical / quantum”, available implicitly in the concept of quantum indistinguishability can be interpreted as two “missing” bits of classical information, which are to be added after teleportation of quantum information to be restored the initial state unambiguously. That new understanding of quantum indistinguishability is linked to the (...) distinction of classical (Maxwell-Boltzmann) versus quantum (either Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein) statistics. The latter can be generalized to classes of wave functions (“empty” qubits) and represented exhaustively in Hilbert arithmetic therefore connectible to the foundations of mathematics, more precisely, to the interrelations of propositional logic and set theory sharing the structure of Boolean algebra and two anti-isometric copies of Peano arithmetic. (shrink)

Originally appeared in the field of thermodynamics, the concept of entropy, especially in its statistical acceptation, has found applications in many different disciplines, both inside and outside science. In this work we focus on the possibility of drawing an isomorphism between the entropy of Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics and that of Xenakis’s stochastic music theory. We expose the major technical aspects of the two entropies and then consider affinities and differences between them, both at syntactic and at semantic level, hereto (...) particularly referring to the philosophical problem of the asymmetry of time. (shrink)

Losses in channel flows are usually determined using a frictional head loss parameter. Fluid friction is however not the only source of loss in channel flows with heat transfer. For such flow problems, thermal energy degradation, in addition to mechanical energy degradation, add to the total loss in thermodynamic head. To assess the total loss in a channel with combined convection and radiation heat transfer, the conventional frictional head loss parameter is extended in this study. The analysis is applied to (...) a 3D turbulent channel flow and identifies the critical locations in the flow domain where the losses are concentrated. The influence of Boltzmann number is discussed, and the best channel geometry for flows with combined heat transfer modes is also determined. (shrink)

contents -/- i. a game we can't abstain from ii. a sudden God, a Boltzmann God iii. the Hard Problem & Humean causation iv. Turing gave a recipe for consciousness v. the Honeymoon Algorithm vi. Tech Civ takes Earth in vii. Borges, the Compressor viii. Hollywood, where faeries enter ix. in the age of Macbeth, magic x. from King to this vile politician xi. Medieval blue not our color blue xii. the austerities prioritize braingrowth xiii. taste is tactile xiv. (...) if God is a Drama Lord xv. the Hero-Dragon story must be realized. (shrink)

In 1866 J.C. Maxwell thought he had discovered a Maxwellian demon—though not under that description, of course [1]. He thought that the temperature of a gas under gravity would vary inversely with the height of the column. From this he saw that it would then be possible to obtain energy for work from a cooling gas, a clear violation of Thompson’s statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This upsetting conclusion made him worry that “there remains as far as I (...) can see a collision between Dynamics and thermodynamics.” Later, he derived the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law that made the temperature the same throughout the column. However, he continued to think about the relationship between dynamics and thermodynamics, and in 1867, he sent Tait a note with a puzzle for him to ponder. The puzzle was his famous “neat-fingered being” who could make a hot system hotter and a cold system colder without any work being done. Thompson in 1874 christened this being a “demon”; Maxwell unsuccessfully tried to rename it “valve.” However named, the demon’s point was to “show that the second law of thermodynamics has only a statistical validity.” Since that time a large physics literature has arisen that asks a question similar to that asked in theology, namely, does the devil exist? Beginning with Popper, philosophers examining the literature on Maxwell’s demon are typically surprised—even horrified [2,3,4,5,6,7]. As a philosopher speaking at a physics conference exactly 100 yrs after Popper’s birth, I want to explain why this is so. The organizers of this conference instructed me to offend everyone, believers and non-believers in demons. Thus my talk, apart from an agnostic middle section, contains a section offending those who believe they have exorcized the demon and a section offending those who summon demons. Throughout the central idea will be to clearly distinguish the various second laws and the various demons.. (shrink)

The black hole information loss paradox is a catch-all term for a family of puzzles related to black hole evaporation. For almost 50 years, the quest to elucidate the implications of black hole evaporation has not only sustained momentum, but has also become increasingly populated with proposals that seem to generate more questions than they purport to answer. Scholars often neglect to acknowledge ongoing discussions within black hole thermodynamics and statistical mechanics when analyzing the paradox, including the interpretation of Bekenstein-Hawking (...) entropy, which is far from settled. To remedy the dialectical gridlock, I have formulated an overarching, unified framework, which I call ``Black Hole Paradoxes'', that integrates the debates and taxonomizes the relevant `camps' or philosophical positions. -/- I demonstrate that black hole evaporation within Hawking's semi-classical framework insinuates how late-time Hawking radiation is an entangled global system, a contradiction in terms. The relevant forms of information loss are associated with a decrease in maximal Boltzmann entropy and an increase in global von Neumann entropy respectively, which engender what I've branded the ``paradox of phantom entanglement''. Prospective solutions are then tasked with demonstrating how late-time Hawking radiation is either exclusively an entangled subsystem, in which a black hole remnant lingers as an information safehouse, or exclusively an unentangled global system, in which information is evacuated to the exterior. -/- The disagreement between safehouse and evacuation solutions boils down to the statistical interpretation of thermodynamic black hole entropy, i.e., Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Safehouse solutions attribute Bekenstein-Hawking entropy to a minority of black hole degrees of freedom, those that are associated with the horizon. Evacuation solutions, in contrast, attribute Bekenstein-Hawking entropy to all black hole degrees of freedom. I argue that the interpretation of Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is the litmus test to vet the overpopulated proposal space. So long as any proposal rejecting Hawking's original calculation independently derives black hole evaporation, globally conserves degrees of freedom and entanglement, preserves a version of semi-classical gravity at sub-Planckian scales, and describes black hole thermodynamics in statistical terms, then it counts as a genuine solution to the paradox. (shrink)

The conventional claims and concepts of 5* - 8* are a hang-over from the classical theory of thermodynamics – i.e. thermodynamics based on a fully deterministic micro-theory, developed in the time of Boltzmann, Loschmidt and Gibbs in the late C19th. The classical theory has well-known ‘reversibility paradoxes’ when applied to the universe as a whole. But the introduction of intrinsic probabilities in quantum mechanics, and its consequent time asymmetry, fundamentally changes the picture.

This study has demonstrated that entropy is not a physical quantity, that is, the physical quantity called entropy does not exist. If the efficiency of heat engine is defined as η = W/W1, and the reversible cycle is considered to be the Stirling cycle, then, given ∮dQ/T = 0, we can prove ∮dW/T = 0 and ∮d/T = 0. If ∮dQ/T = 0, ∮dW/T = 0 and ∮dE/T = 0 are thought to define new system state variables, such definitions would (...) be absurd. The fundamental error of entropy is that in any reversible process, the polytropic process function Q is not a single-valued function of T, and the key step of Σ[(ΔQ)/T)] to ∫dQ/T doesn’t hold, P-V fig. should be P-V-T fig.in thermodynamics. Similarly, ∮dQ/T = 0, ∮dW/T = 0 and ∮dE/T = 0 do not hold, either. Since the absolute entropy of Boltzmann is used to explain Clausius entropy and the unit (J/K) of the former is transformed from the latter, the non-existence of Clausius entropy simultaneously denies Boltzmann entropy. (shrink)

Ediţia a doua (revăzută şi îmbunătăţită) O introducere în teoriile şi conceptele, forţele fundamentale şi particule, metode şi tabele utilizate în fizică, subdomenii şi domenii ştiinţifice înrudite, cu accent pe înţelegerea fenomenelor fizice. Fizica clasică se ocupă, în general, cu materia și energia la scară normală de observație, în timp ce o mare parte a fizicii moderne se ocupă de comportamentul materiei și energiei în condiții extreme sau pe o scară foarte mare sau foarte mică. De exemplu, pentru fizica atomică (...) și nucleară contează scara cea mai mică la care elementele chimice pot fi identificate. Fizica particulelor elementare are o scară chiar mai mică, deoarece se referă la unitățile de bază ale materiei; această ramură a fizicii este, de asemenea, cunoscută sub numele de fizica energiilor înalte, din cauza energiilor extrem de ridicate necesare pentru a produce mai multe tipuri de particule, în acceleratoare de particule mari. La această scară, de obicei, noțiunile obișnuite de spațiu, timp, materie și energie nu mai sunt valabile. Cele două teorii principale ale fizicii moderne prezintă o imagine diferită a conceptelor de spațiu, timp, și materie, faţă de fizica clasică. Teoria cuantică studiază natura mai degrabă discretă decât continuă a multor fenomene la nivel atomic și subatomic, și aspectele complementare ale particulelor și undelor în descrierea unor astfel de fenomene. Teoria relativității studiază descrierea fenomenelor care au loc într-un cadru de referință, care este în mișcare faţă de un observator. Teoria specială a relativității studiază mișcarea relativ uniformă în linie dreaptă, iar teoria generală a relativității mișcarea accelerată și legătura sa cu gravitația. Atât teoria cuantică cât și teoria relativității îşi găsesc aplicații în toate domeniile fizicii moderne. CUPRINS: Fizica - Scurtă istorie - Fizica şi filozofia - Teorii de bază în fizică - - Fizica clasică - - Fizica modernă - - Diferenţa între fizica clasică şi fizica modernă - Cercetarea în fizică - - Metode ştiinţifice - - Teorie şi experiment - Domenii de aplicare şi obiective - - Domenii de cercetare - - Direcţii de dezvoltare - - Direcţii actuale de cercetare Teorii - Fizica teoretică - - Teorii recunoscute - - Teorii propuse - - Teorii marginale Teorii recunoscute - Termodinamica - - Legile termodinamicii - - Concepte în termodinamică - - Substanţe care se pot descrie doar prin temperatură - - Substanţe care se pot descrie doar prin temperatură şi presiune - - Substanţe care se pot descrie prin temperatură, presiune şi potenţial chimic - - Substanţe care se pot descrie prin temperatură şi câmp magnetic - - Sisteme termodinamice - - Stări termodinamice - Mecanica statistică - Relativitatea specială - - Motivaţia pentru teoria relativităţii speciale - - Invarianţa vitezei luminii - - Lipsa unui cadru de referinţă absolut - - Echivalenţa dintre energie şi masă - - Simultaneitatea - - Evoluţia teoriei relativităţii speciale - Teoria relativităţii generale - - Dezvoltarea relativităţii şi a relativităţii speciale - - Gaura de vierme - - - Călătorii cu viteze mai mari decât viteza luminii şi călătorii în timp - - - Universul nostru, într-o gaură neagră - - - Concluzii - Mecanica cuantică - - Descrierea teoriei - - Formularea matematică - - Interacţia cu alte teorii ale fizicii - - Istoria, filozofia şi viitorul mecanicii cuantice - - - Istoria - - - Filozofia - - - Viitorul - - Optica cuantică - - - Electronica cuantică - - Laser - - - Concepte de bază - - - Terminologie - - - Construcţia unui laser - - - Fizica laserilor - - - Extreme Light Infrastructure - - - Arme cu laser - Teoria câmpului cuantic - - Probleme ale mecanicii cuantice obişnuite - - Câmpuri cuantice - Modelul Standard - - Teste, predicţii şi provocări Teorii propuse - Teoria finală (Theory of everything) - - Idei speculative - Teoria marii unificări - Teoria M - - Relaţia teoriei M cu supercorzile şi supergravitaţia - - Caracteristici ale teoriei M - Gravitaţia cuantică în buclă - - Incompatibilitatea dintre mecanica cuantică şi relativitatea generală - - Buclele Wilson şi reţelele de spin - - Gravitaţia cuantică în buclă şi cosmologia cuantică - - Testele experimentale de GCB - Emergenţa Teorii marginale - Fuziunea la rece - - Fuziunea cu bule - Tesla şi Teoria dinamică a gravitaţiei - Eter luminifer - - Dezavantaje şi critici - Energia orgonică - - Dezvoltarea de către Reich a teoriilor sale orgonice - - Cărţile lui Reich Concepte - Mecanica clasică - - Istoria - - Statica - - - Vectori - - - Forţa - - - Momentul forţei - - - Ecuaţiile de echilibru - - - Momentul de inerţie - - - Solide - - - Fluide - - Dinamica - - - Principii - - - Dinamica liniară şi de rotaţie - - - Forţa - - - Legile lui Newton - - Frecarea - - - Legile frecării uscate - - - Reducerea frecării - Materia - - Antimateria - Energia - - Legile conservării în fizică - - - Filosofia legilor de conservare - - Masa - - - Masa inerţială - - - Masa gravitaţională - - - Echivalenţa maselor inerţială şi gravitaţională - - - Consecinţele relativităţii - - Cantitatea de mişcare (impulsul) - - - Cantitatea de mişcare în mecanica clasică - - - Cantitatea de mişcare în mecanica relativistă - - - Cantitatea de mişcare în mecanica cuantică - - Momentul cinetic - - Spinul - - - Istoria - - - Aplicaţii - Dimensiuni - - Timpul - - - Măsurarea timpului - - - Timpul în inginerie şi fizica aplicată - - - Timpul în filosofie şi fizica teoretică - - Spaţiu-timp - - - Cadrul de referinţă - - - Câteva fapte generale despre spaţiu-timp - - - Este spaţiul-timp cuantificat? - - Viteza - - Forţa - - - Relaţiile dintre unităţile de forţă şi unităţile de masă - - - Unităţi imperiale de forţă - - Momentul forţei - Sisteme fizice - Unde - - Exemple de unde - - Proprietăţi caracteristice - - Unde transversale şi longitudinale - - Polarizarea - - Descriere fizică a unei unde - - Unde de deplasare - - Ecuaţia undelor - - Entanglementul cuantic - - Magnetism - - - Dipoli magnetici - - - Modele de materiale magnetice - - Electricitatea - - - Istorie - - - Puterea electrică - - - Curentul electric - - - Fenomene electrice în natură - - Radiaţia electromagnetică - - Temperatura - - - Unităţi de temperatură - - - Bazele teoretice - - - Capacitatea termică - - - Temperatura în gaze - - - Măsurarea temperaturii - - - Temperaturi negative - - Entropia - - - Schimbarea de entropie în motoarele termice - - - Definiţia statistică a entropiei: Principiul lui Boltzmann - - - Măsurarea entropiei - - Informaţia în fizică - - - Informaţia clasică vs informaţia cuantică - - - Informaţii clasice - - - Informaţiile fizice şi entropia - Tranziţii - - Tranziţii de fază - - - Clasificarea tranziţiilor de fază - - - - Clasificarea Ehrenfest - - - - Clasificarea modernă a tranziţiilor de fază - - - Proprietăţi ale tranziţiilor de fază - - - - Puncte critice - - - - Simetria - - - - Exponenţi critici şi clase de universalitate - - Supraconductibilitatea - - - Istoria - - - Teorii ale supraconductibilităţii - - - Aplicaţii tehnologice ale supraconductibilităţii - - - Proprietăţile elementare ale supraconductorilor - - Superfluiditatea Forţe fundamentale - Gravitaţia - - Despre legea gravitaţiei universale a lui Newton - - - Forma vectorială - - - Istorie - - - Reticenţele lui Newton - - - Comparaţie cu forţa electromagnetică - - Teoria relativităţii generale a lui Einstein - - - Mecanica cuantică şi ondulatorie - - Situaţii specifice - - - Gravitaţia Pământului - - - Ecuațiile pentru un corp în cădere în apropiere de suprafața Pământului - - - Gravitaţia și astronomia - - - Radiația gravitațională - - - Viteza gravitaţiei - Electromagnetism - - Descrierea matematică - - Câmp electric E - - Metoda electromagnetică - - Electrostatica - - - Serii triboelectrice - - - Generatoare electrostatice - - - Neutralizarea sarcinilor - - - Inducţia sarcinilor - - - Electricitatea "statică" - Forţa nucleară slabă - Forţa nucleară tare Particule - Particule elementare - - Proprietăţi conceptuale - - - Dimensiunea - - - Compoziţia - - Modelul Standard în fizica particulelor elementare - - - Fermioni fundamentali - - - - Antiparticule - - - - Cuarci - - - Bosoni fundamentali - - - - Gluoni - - - - Bosoni electroslabi - - - - Bosonul Higgs - - Extensii ale Modelului Standard în fizica particulelor elementare - - - Marea unificare - - - Supersimetria - - - Teoria corzilor - - - Teoria preonilor - Atomi - - Modele istorice de atomi - - Nucleul atomic - Protoni - Neutroni - - Istoric - - - Evoluţia actuală - Electroni - - Istoria - - Detalii tehnice - - Electricitate - Cuarci - Fotoni - Gluoni - Bosoni W şi Z - - Bosonul Higgs - Gravitoni - Neutrino - - Neutrino, noul sistem de comunicaţii - - Telefonul – particulă - - Comunicaţii cu submarinele - - Mesaje pentru călătoria în timp - Cvasiparticule - - Relaţia cu mecanica cuantică multi-corp - - Distincţia între cvasiparticule şi excitaţii colective - - Efectul asupra proprietăţilor colective - - Istoria - Fononi - - Unde de reţea - - Fononi acustici şi optici Subdomenii - Acustica - - Concepte fundamentale ale acusticii - - - Propagarea undelor: nivele de presiune - - - Propagarea undelor: frecvenţa - - - Transducţia în acustică - Astrofizica - - Erupţii solare - - - Evoluţia exploziilor solare - - - Impactul exploziilor solare asupra omenirii - - - - Ejecţia masei coronariene - - - - Misiunile spaţiale - - - - Întreruperi de energie electrică - Fizica atomică, moleculară, şi optică - - Apa grea - - Osmoza - Fizica computaţională - Fizica materiei condensate - Criogenia - Mecanica fluidelor - Optica - - Optica clasică - - Optica modernă - Fizica plasmei - Fizica particulelor - - Istoria - - Modelul Standard - - Fizica particulelor experimentală - - Obiecţii - - Politici publice Metode - Metode ştiinţifice - - Elementele metodelor ştiinţifice idealizate - - Aspecte ale metodelor ştiinţifice - - - Observaţia - - - Ipoteza - - - Predicţia - - - Verificarea - - - Evaluarea - - - Alte aspecte ale metodelor ştiinţifice - Mărimi fizice - Măsurători fizice - Analiza dimensională - - Exemplu aplicat - Statistica Tabele - Legile fizicii - Constante fizice - Sistemul Internaţional pentru unităţi de măsură - - Origine - - Scrierea SI - - Unităţi de bază în Sistemul Internaţional SI - - - Lungime (l) - - - Masa (m) - - - Timp (t) - - - Curentul electric (I) - - - Temperatura termodinamică (T) - - - Cantitatea de substanţă (n) - - - Intensitatea luminoasă (I) - - Unităţi SI derivate - - Prefixe SI în fizică - - - Unităţi folosite în afara SI - Unităţi fizice - - Unităţi ca dimensiuni - - Unităţi de bază şi derivate - - Conversia unităţilor - - Prefixele in sistemul SI - - Sfaturi şi reguli pentru calcule cu unităţi fizice Istoria - Fizica în antichitate - Fizica în Evul Mediu - Fizica în sec. XVI-VIII - Fizica în sec. XIX - Fizica în sec. XX Probleme nerezolvate în fizică Domenii interdisciplinare - Fizica aplicată (Fizica tehnologică) - Fizica acceleratorilor - - Accelerarea și interacțiunea particulelor cu structuri RF - - Dinamica fluxului - - Coduri de modelare - - Diagnosticările fluxului - - Toleranţele maşinii Domenii înrudite - Relaţia fizicii cu alte domenii - - Cerinţe preliminare - - Applicaţii şi influenţe - Astronomia - - Scurtă istorie - - Subdomenii ale astronomiei. Cum se obţin informaţiile în astronomie. - - - După subiect - - - Modalităţi de obţinere a informaţiilor - - Telescoape - - - Tipuri de telescoape - - Planetele rătăcitoare - Biofizica - - Subiecte în biofizică şi domenii conexe - - Biofizicieni celebri - Chimia fizică - - Concepte-cheie - Cosmologia - - Subiecele din cosmologie includ: - - - Cosmologia fizică - - - Cosmologii alternative - - - Cosmologia filosofică - - - Cosmologia religioasă - Electronica - - Exemplu - Geofizica - - Metode - - - Geodezie - - - Sonde spaţiale - - Cutremure - Fizica chimică - Ingineria - - Sarcina ingineriei - - Rezolvarea problemelor - - Utilizarea calculatoarelor - - Etimologia - - Conexiunile cu alte discipline - Ştiinţa materialelor Pseudofizica - Anti-gravitaţia - - Efecte convenţionale care imită efectele anti-gravitaţiei - - Soluţii ipotetice - - - Scuturi gravitaţionale - - - Cercetări în relativitatea generală în anii 1950 - - - A cincea forţă - - - "Unităţi distorsionate" în relativitatea generală - - - Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program - - Încercări experimentale şi comerciale - - - Dispozitive giroscopice - - - Gravitatorul lui Thomas Townsend Brown - - - Cuplarea gravitoelectrică - - - Premiul Göde - Eter luminifer - - Dezavantaje şi critici - Fuziunea la rece - - Fuziunea cu bule - - Rezultate - - - Producţia de energie şi căldura în exces - - - Heliu, elemente grele, şi neutroni - - Mecanisme propuse Referinţe Despre autor - Nicolae Sfetcu - - Contact . (shrink)

Abstract: After 2017 NY Times publication, the stigma of the scientific discussion of the problem of so-called UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) was lifted. Now the question arises: how UAP will affect the future of humanity, and especially, the probability of the global catastrophic risks? To answer this question, we assume that the Nimitz case in 2004 was real and we will suggest a classification of the possible explanations of the phenomena. The first level consists of mundane explanations: hardware glitches, malfunction, (...) hoaxes and lies. The second level involves explanations which are not changing completely our model of the world, but only updating it: new military tech, large psyop operation or new physical effect like ball lightning. The third level of explanations requires a complete overhaul of our world model and includes a large set of fantastic hypothesis: alien starships, interdimensional beings, glitches in the matrix, projections from the collective unconsciousness, Boltzmann brain’s experiences etc. The higher is the level of the hypothesis, the less probable it is, but the bigger is its consequences for possible global catastrophic risks. Thus, “integrating” over the field of all possible explanations, we find that UAP increases catastrophic risks. Technological progress increases our chances of direct confrontation with the phenomena. If the phenomenon has intelligence, the change of its behavior could be unexpected after we pass some unknown threshold. But we could lower the risks if we assume some reasonable policy of escaping confrontations. (shrink)

The Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is a fairly exotic mathematical concept which has recently aroused some interest on the philosophers’ part. The most salient trait of this concept is its working as a junction between such diverse ambits as statistical mechanics, information theory and algorithm theory. In this paper I argue that, in order to understand this very special feature of the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy, is essential to reconstruct its genealogy. Somewhat surprisingly, this story takes us as far back as the beginning of (...) celestial mechanics and through some of the most exciting developments of mathematical physics of the 19th century. (shrink)