After re-thinking your post, it appears you are saying that my proof doesn’t work because a given set of events are not simultaneous between different observers, and there is no single-defined state for everyone at any time. But that still is irrelevant to the nature of the proof. Define a state as any system, for any length of time, for any observer, and that state no longer exists. It spontaneously ceases to exist, both because of the momenta of the particles and the increasing entropy.
If someone clearly does not understand your post, you shouldn’t give up in trying to explain it. I made this thread for discussion, after all.
I am always willing to explain, so long as there appears to be someone home to receive and discuss the explanation. Thanks for coming back. I invite you to stick with me on this question, because your OP was a good one, worth discussion, and either you or I is at the wrong end of it.
More likely it is I who am mistaken, but no matter. I like to deal with my errors early, else they preclude further thought. Throughout this discussion I will pretend that I am absolutely right, and confess when shown otherwise.
Seems like we first need to get clear about meanings and definitions, else we’ll be arguing apples and fish. When you refer to a “state” I assume a fixed, determinable set of conditions which exist, unchanging, for a specific unit of time which may be as short as a Planck time unit, but no shorter.
In the real world we know of only a few such states. The quantum states of small isolated physical systems, and the modern digital computer. Computers are what I would call,
de facto state machines. They shift from one state to another under control of an analog clock, from which timing signals are digitized and used to set the “real world” time interval between states.
If that description of physical states matches yours, we can proceed with what I anticipate to be a quality conversation. Otherwise, we need to get clear on definitions first, else risk coming across as silly and irrelevant to the millions of CAF members reading our conversation from the sidelines. I can abide looking silly, but from experience I know that normal humans are sensitive to embarrassment.
Here’s a talking point. You mentioned momentum. This is one of the properties of matter which precludes definable states. Within a computer, a given state is determined by points at which momentum is dissipated, or nearly so.
If you are speaking of “state” in a non-quantized manner, you are not speaking of true states. That is because non-quantized states cannot be defined. If your understanding of the nature of state cannot be defined, the point of this discussion needs to be reworded.
For example, consider the movement of a baseball from pitcher to hitter/catcher. At the end of its path, the momentum of the baseball will be momentarily zero, whether it is hit or caught. In broad terms, that represents a state.
Now consider the baseball’s flight path. Is it continuous, traversing every spacetime point between pitcher and catcher, or does it consist of a series of definable states, meaning specific positions in spacetime?
We can proceed according to your answer to that question, which will allow us to address the notion of “
state” from a common perspective. If we cannot find such a perspective, our failure may evaporate the discussion into the never-never land of unstable conceptual grounds, where the intellectually damned are given the task of building precision instruments while floating in a raft off the tip of Cape Horn.
Incidentally, since it would be helpful to future discussions, are you familiar with digital design concepts and the theory behind state machines? Okay if not, of course.
