On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 01:46 PM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:



On 2 Jan 2004 at 12:33, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Wheeler is correct, Einstein's GR is "battle-tested" both
philosophically and experimentally.
So is orthodox quantum theory.

Simplistic frontal assaults on their well-established foundations will
never succeed.

Jack,

Not so. The term "simplistic" is too fuzzy. The previous statement,
that "Wheeler is correct, Einstein's GR is "battle-tested" both
philosophically and experimentally. So is orthodox quantum theory" -
is a distorsion of Wheeler's views.

JS: I do not understand your point here? Please give more details.

" I suggest that that we may never understand this strange thing,
the quantum, until we understand how information may underlie
reality. Information may not be just what we *learn* about the world.
It may be what *makes* the world." (J.A. Wheeler, 'Geons, Black Holes
and Quantum Foam')

JS: Recent work by Lee Smolin on the weak hologram principle adds a lot
of detail to Wheeler's remark. "Area as quantum information flow". See
also Smolin's pop book "Three Roads to Quantum Dynamics".

One issue in regard to "quantum information flow" is "signal locality
vs. signal nonlocality."

http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf

I say that quantum gravity needs signal nonlocality in violation of
orthodox quantum theory with signal locality. This allows information
inside the black hole to be available to the outside observer and may
change Lee Smolin's distinction between the "strong" and "weak" hologram
principles.

LOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM theory, with signal nonlocality" is to GLOBAL
micro-quantum theory with "signal locality" as LOCAL General Relativity
with "curvature" is to GLOBAL Special Relativity without curvature.


AJ: Quantum theory needs to unify "dy-namics" and "bi-namics"

http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_fu...b.htm#blaja95a

ark

JS: What is "bi-namics"?

##################################################
Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm


JS: Your website is very interesting Ark, but would require many hours
to seriously comprehend.
Can you give a kind of public synopsis of your key ideas, your
motivation, your philosophy?
Show us your hand in this Cosmic Poker Game. :-) You are a well-educated
PhD theoretical physicist.

"Jack Sarfatti" wrote in message
m...
Wheeler is correct, Einstein's GR is "battle-tested" both
philosophically and experimentally.
So is orthodox quantum theory.

Newtonian mechanics was "battle-tested" in its day. Only when instruments
became more accurate and tiny discrepancies showed up did it have to be
refined, firstly by SR then by GR.

Who's to say that GR and QM won't need similar refinement by whatever higher
theory (string theory? superstring theory?) marries them together.
Meanwhile, calculations made according to present-day GR and QM are good
enough. So there's no need to knock them off their separate pedestals,
rather seek to build a pedestal big enough for two.
--
Paul V. S. Townsend
Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply