You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanielLC comments on Open thread, 9-15 June 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Tenoke 09 June 2014 01:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (239)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanielLC 12 June 2014 11:20:35PM *  0 points [-]

If they are of the same type then a point (A,0,0,B,0,0) would result in the same state as (B,0,0,A,0,0)

If they're bosons. If they're fermions it would be opposite state.

I would understand this as those points mapping to a same R^3->C function.

They map to the same (or opposite) C value.

I thought that the real mechanics happen on the R^3->C and if there are mechanics on the higher dimensional structure they are an emergent consequence of that level.

The real mechanics happen on the R^(3n)->C. If they're not very entangled, you can separate it approximately into f(x,y) ~= (g(x),h(y)), where x and y are the positions of the points in R^3, f is a wave function from R^6 to C, and g and h are wave functions from R^3 to C.

Like I can index me throwing a rock on the lake by where my rock lands. However this kind of description can not describe any two simultanoues throws or things like throwing a stick sideways into the water. The wierder throws I make the more things I need to spesify. However if I somehow manage convey the shape of the water there is no way it can be inadeqaute picture of the wave (such as if I make a topographical map). And in no way of splashing can I add or remove water or make it do anything but go up or down. The quantum field takes on value of C so it has "more room" than simply going up or down. However in no way of taking on those C values does the lake change in volume or dimensionality.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.