I would be interested to know if Professor Elitzur has ever heard of syntropy? Developed by Fantappie? Not completely through with the lecture, but if he hasn’t, he might be interested. Fantappie worked with Einstein at Princeton. And had an alternate solution for e= MC squared that seem to show a reverse of entropy, syntropy.
Thanks for your input.I glanced at syntropy and found it to be an interesting idea. I'm guesting that Prof. Eliztur will feel the same way. I can't pretend to speak for him, but I would guess that he might respond that if the two-state vector approach is the right way to think about physics and nature, then it stands to reason that we will see similar manifestations of this "time-symmetry" at all scales of science. In any case, thank you for the reference!
Thanks for your reply. It's a neat dimension to TH-cam that I might be able to pass an idea along like that. On the off chance you or Prof. Elitzur would find this thought interesting, I came upon Syntropy researching an idea I have that consciousness and time are intimately linked, and that the missing advanced waves may actually be the necessary precondition for consciousness itself, as if consciousness balances the asymmetry of time. My thoughts can be found here: th-cam.com/video/4eMW5Zkdk5M/w-d-xo.html @eismscience
@@eismscience my question to tack on is why the two state vector seems different when applied to the future vs the past from inside the space to to speak. this might seem a bit trivial, but if we describe some event two days ago with a wave function evolving into the past from today and a wave function evolving into the future from three days ago or something like that, we can now today have a specific result for the intermediate. why does the setup only look "resolved" at the end so to speak. meaning simply why can we post select only after and not before doing the experiment. if the physics is fundamentally time symmetric then why are all experiment post selections only possible after experiments and not before experiments. you can try to explain it in terms of entropy and so on, and macroscopic processes and decoherence, but the result is to produce an arrow in one direction, which can just as easily be run the other way with respect to the starting point of the fundamentally time symmetric physics.
it is a very deep problem, i feel it is a deeper problem than quantum mechanics can really solve, but that is just me. i feel that the post selections, and the reversibility in principle speaks to a problem with the way we understand quantum mechanics in relation to nature rather than something that can be solved within it, but a proper answer would be fun anyway, whether it is within or without. my basic concern is that yes there are states structured such that a local arrow of time is more likely, but it is more likely whichever way you go, towards the future or the past, assuming some randomized micro state, this translates i feel into quantum mechanical terms in the way that some portion of the wave function disperses when you apply it, independently of in what time direction it is applied, but that means just by looking at the equations that there are definitely a different time reversal where the wave function doesn't spread out but shrinks down, for ensembles or quantum systems there are two kinds of time reversal, playing the tape backwards, or assuming some randomized similar state and evolving in a time direction, whether backward or forward it should then give the same results. while playing the tape back would always mean retracing what has happened. for example if you play the tape back on a stationary ball, the tape has memory of when the ball was bounding, while the randomized state of the ensemble of the ball and environment only has a recurrence time for the kind of entropy reversing kick the playback of the tape entails, there is no one to one correspondence, if you knew the tape said the ball was bouncing 10 seconds earlier in the tape then when you are playing back from, you know the floor and the ball is in a very specific state that will produce an effect when viewed backwards that has a recurrence time for a similar randomized state of the order of much much longer than the lifetime of the universe. the problem with quantum mechanics is that we have there thermodynamic like quantum states which have somewhat randomized outcomes, but no tape to speak of in our description of them, so there are no clear micro states to talk about, to resolve the distinction in the same way. i know viewing quantum states as coarse grained is possible, so there are potential solutions, but it is important i think to keep this distinction in mind when discussing time reversal.
tempted to send the prof a small sketch of a paper, where i explain the relationship between recurrence time over a close system and time reversal vs variable reflection, whether it is velocity or something else. the key thing is that yeah entropy should increase towards both past and future, but if you add another layer of variables, that act upon the molecular trajectories in a randomizing way for example, even if it is tiny, then full time reversal is still fine, works the same, but variable reflection for velocity is now not quite the same for the molecules, because the recurrence times of the system as a whole changes, even if the effect of the added gunk is tiny and not even easily measurable. this has to do with chaos, and the phase spaces of systems like this, when we bring in structure and emergence it gets really interesting, and provides reasons for why we never see an egg un-break that are much more convincing than the standard story. this is also somewhat compatible with QM, but i believe that my kind of vision for the future of fundamental picture is more closely related to Yakir's picture of the much richer and more complex prepared state of nature that gives a definite outcome, than any standard story. the application of the two state vector i believe is ultimately different from the past and future once all of reality is consulted, but that is a story for another time, but is intimately related to this story of a very complicated and "non local" preparation that can't be measured out or prepared outside post selection criteria for quantum states.
But I read on because he is now joining concepts together to explain or overcome apparent anomalies between thermodynamics and biology and evolution needs rescuing at all costs. So at 1:18:07 _"Evolution is a process in which information from the environment is being absorbed and processed again in order to refine it and make it more important."_ *Critical thinking* must be employed here to correctly answer this statement. That means *defining the terms* and *identifying the assumptions.* 1st *information* without _"value"_ or *meaning* is not information at all. That is counting bits using Shannon's equation has nothing to do with information as a *communication* which is always the product of a *mind* because communication is always in a *LANGUAGE* which can only be known my a *mind.* Understanding the correct definition of the term information means there is no information just floating about in the environment ie that is an *assumption* based on a flawed definition which is therefore not justified. The real problem with evolution is random organic chemistry has to write new information to create the machinery of life without knowing either language or grammar or even the alphabet and that without a purpose to give it meaning! Meaning of necessity can come from a mind with a purpose just as I create this communication in English for the purpose of checking error and conveying what we can say is truth (verified knowledge). Only God has absolute truth.
@@midbc1midbc199 Not if you wrap it tightly in a *philosophy of naturalism!* Why are you people so convinced you must reject what is staring you in the face? The existence of an infinite mind behind the extremely specialised states of order on all scales from minute to massive that we observe and know cannot have a natural cause without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
In the last part he defines *complexity* as *algorithmic complexity* which is ok but illustrates how the word 'complex' always requires a qualifier, that is it has no meaning by itself. Just as you can talk about *functional complexity* or even describe a rock having *chemical complexity* or its shape as *geometric complexity.* The first observation we can take from this is the only *information* attached to all these definitions is in the mind of the person describing it or in the case of algorithmic complexity in the mind of the person who created it and wrote it down. None of it came from natural processes. Secondly complexity in these terms is not independent of order since both can be used to describe the same thing but only order is universal whereas algorithmic complexity is specific to systems of prior encoded information which itself had to originate from a mind. The mathematical nature of life as we have discovered it has no verified natural cause even though an evolutionary process can be imagined as in the case of the 13 year - 17 year cicadas this has not been verified and does not account for the process skipping much smaller prime numbers which would achieve the same result.
When reading a book or listening to a lecture I stop at the first incorrect statement. There usually is no point in going any further and I don't have time to correct everyone on every point. This occurs at about 33:03 where prof Elitzur defines the *MACROSTATE* of a system as the WHOLE SYSTEM and W as the number of micorstates in the whole system! *WRONG!* This is not how Boltzmann defined W or the macrostate? So why does this professor (and all those he referred to) hide the truth which he surely must know? Answer *GOD!* Atheistic science cannot handle this truth. How do I know this? Because it is a direct outcome of the philosophy of naturalism which has hijacked all science since Boltzmann around 1900 after he discovered the truth about entropy. From Boltzmann we know: [ 1
Starting with rabbits he talks about birds wings evolving from insignificant to useful in size with the words _"we know"_ but on what basis is this *known?* Answer none, it is a pure *assumption* for there is no evidence of this to be found anywhere and it cannot be simulated on a fast computer without purpose or objective and the required design features given!
brilliant lecture! never enough thanks for providing these to the public.
Information has a value. This I now understand.
I would be interested to know if Professor Elitzur has ever heard of syntropy? Developed by Fantappie? Not completely through with the lecture, but if he hasn’t, he might be interested. Fantappie worked with Einstein at Princeton. And had an alternate solution for e= MC squared that seem to show a reverse of entropy, syntropy.
Thanks for your input.I glanced at syntropy and found it to be an interesting idea. I'm guesting that Prof. Eliztur will feel the same way. I can't pretend to speak for him, but I would guess that he might respond that if the two-state vector approach is the right way to think about physics and nature, then it stands to reason that we will see similar manifestations of this "time-symmetry" at all scales of science.
In any case, thank you for the reference!
Thanks for your reply. It's a neat dimension to TH-cam that I might be able to pass an idea along like that. On the off chance you or Prof. Elitzur would find this thought interesting, I came upon Syntropy researching an idea I have that consciousness and time are intimately linked, and that the missing advanced waves may actually be the necessary precondition for consciousness itself, as if consciousness balances the asymmetry of time. My thoughts can be found here: th-cam.com/video/4eMW5Zkdk5M/w-d-xo.html @eismscience
@@eismscience my question to tack on is why the two state vector seems different when applied to the future vs the past from inside the space to to speak. this might seem a bit trivial, but if we describe some event two days ago with a wave function evolving into the past from today and a wave function evolving into the future from three days ago or something like that, we can now today have a specific result for the intermediate. why does the setup only look "resolved" at the end so to speak. meaning simply why can we post select only after and not before doing the experiment. if the physics is fundamentally time symmetric then why are all experiment post selections only possible after experiments and not before experiments. you can try to explain it in terms of entropy and so on, and macroscopic processes and decoherence, but the result is to produce an arrow in one direction, which can just as easily be run the other way with respect to the starting point of the fundamentally time symmetric physics.
it is a very deep problem, i feel it is a deeper problem than quantum mechanics can really solve, but that is just me. i feel that the post selections, and the reversibility in principle speaks to a problem with the way we understand quantum mechanics in relation to nature rather than something that can be solved within it, but a proper answer would be fun anyway, whether it is within or without. my basic concern is that yes there are states structured such that a local arrow of time is more likely, but it is more likely whichever way you go, towards the future or the past, assuming some randomized micro state, this translates i feel into quantum mechanical terms in the way that some portion of the wave function disperses when you apply it, independently of in what time direction it is applied, but that means just by looking at the equations that there are definitely a different time reversal where the wave function doesn't spread out but shrinks down, for ensembles or quantum systems there are two kinds of time reversal, playing the tape backwards, or assuming some randomized similar state and evolving in a time direction, whether backward or forward it should then give the same results. while playing the tape back would always mean retracing what has happened. for example if you play the tape back on a stationary ball, the tape has memory of when the ball was bounding, while the randomized state of the ensemble of the ball and environment only has a recurrence time for the kind of entropy reversing kick the playback of the tape entails, there is no one to one correspondence, if you knew the tape said the ball was bouncing 10 seconds earlier in the tape then when you are playing back from, you know the floor and the ball is in a very specific state that will produce an effect when viewed backwards that has a recurrence time for a similar randomized state of the order of much much longer than the lifetime of the universe. the problem with quantum mechanics is that we have there thermodynamic like quantum states which have somewhat randomized outcomes, but no tape to speak of in our description of them, so there are no clear micro states to talk about, to resolve the distinction in the same way. i know viewing quantum states as coarse grained is possible, so there are potential solutions, but it is important i think to keep this distinction in mind when discussing time reversal.
tempted to send the prof a small sketch of a paper, where i explain the relationship between recurrence time over a close system and time reversal vs variable reflection, whether it is velocity or something else. the key thing is that yeah entropy should increase towards both past and future, but if you add another layer of variables, that act upon the molecular trajectories in a randomizing way for example, even if it is tiny, then full time reversal is still fine, works the same, but variable reflection for velocity is now not quite the same for the molecules, because the recurrence times of the system as a whole changes, even if the effect of the added gunk is tiny and not even easily measurable. this has to do with chaos, and the phase spaces of systems like this, when we bring in structure and emergence it gets really interesting, and provides reasons for why we never see an egg un-break that are much more convincing than the standard story. this is also somewhat compatible with QM, but i believe that my kind of vision for the future of fundamental picture is more closely related to Yakir's picture of the much richer and more complex prepared state of nature that gives a definite outcome, than any standard story. the application of the two state vector i believe is ultimately different from the past and future once all of reality is consulted, but that is a story for another time, but is intimately related to this story of a very complicated and "non local" preparation that can't be measured out or prepared outside post selection criteria for quantum states.
But I read on because he is now joining concepts together to explain or overcome apparent anomalies between thermodynamics and biology and evolution needs rescuing at all costs. So at 1:18:07 _"Evolution is a process in which information from the environment is being absorbed and processed again in order to refine it and make it more important."_
*Critical thinking* must be employed here to correctly answer this statement. That means *defining the terms* and *identifying the assumptions.* 1st *information* without _"value"_ or *meaning* is not information at all. That is counting bits using Shannon's equation has nothing to do with information as a *communication* which is always the product of a *mind* because communication is always in a *LANGUAGE* which can only be known my a *mind.* Understanding the correct definition of the term information means there is no information just floating about in the environment ie that is an *assumption* based on a flawed definition which is therefore not justified.
The real problem with evolution is random organic chemistry has to write new information to create the machinery of life without knowing either language or grammar or even the alphabet and that without a purpose to give it meaning! Meaning of necessity can come from a mind with a purpose just as I create this communication in English for the purpose of checking error and conveying what we can say is truth (verified knowledge). Only God has absolute truth.
Scientific method beats all
@@midbc1midbc199 Not if you wrap it tightly in a *philosophy of naturalism!* Why are you people so convinced you must reject what is staring you in the face? The existence of an infinite mind behind the extremely specialised states of order on all scales from minute to massive that we observe and know cannot have a natural cause without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
In the last part he defines *complexity* as *algorithmic complexity* which is ok but illustrates how the word 'complex' always requires a qualifier, that is it has no meaning by itself. Just as you can talk about *functional complexity* or even describe a rock having *chemical complexity* or its shape as *geometric complexity.*
The first observation we can take from this is the only *information* attached to all these definitions is in the mind of the person describing it or in the case of algorithmic complexity in the mind of the person who created it and wrote it down. None of it came from natural processes.
Secondly complexity in these terms is not independent of order since both can be used to describe the same thing but only order is universal whereas algorithmic complexity is specific to systems of prior encoded information which itself had to originate from a mind. The mathematical nature of life as we have discovered it has no verified natural cause even though an evolutionary process can be imagined as in the case of the 13 year - 17 year cicadas this has not been verified and does not account for the process skipping much smaller prime numbers which would achieve the same result.
When reading a book or listening to a lecture I stop at the first incorrect statement. There usually is no point in going any further and I don't have time to correct everyone on every point. This occurs at about 33:03 where prof Elitzur defines the *MACROSTATE* of a system as the WHOLE SYSTEM and W as the number of micorstates in the whole system! *WRONG!*
This is not how Boltzmann defined W or the macrostate? So why does this professor (and all those he referred to) hide the truth which he surely must know? Answer *GOD!* Atheistic science cannot handle this truth.
How do I know this? Because it is a direct outcome of the philosophy of naturalism which has hijacked all science since Boltzmann around 1900 after he discovered the truth about entropy. From Boltzmann we know: [ 1
Starting with rabbits he talks about birds wings evolving from insignificant to useful in size with the words _"we know"_ but on what basis is this *known?* Answer none, it is a pure *assumption* for there is no evidence of this to be found anywhere and it cannot be simulated on a fast computer without purpose or objective and the required design features given!