date:20220322

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:50 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>>> If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality
>>> violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement
>>> results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good
>>> reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield
>>> one of two possible results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two
>>> local copies, as opposed to say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that
>>> measurement, and 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies
>>> of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.
>>>
>>
>> Since the relative angle can be any real number, you need an infinite
>> number of copies to be able to produce any real number as the probability.
>> There is no known reason why individuals should appear in an infinite
>> number of copies. This is not implied by Everett or by the Schrodinger
>> equation. It is just a made-up fantasy with no evidential backing.
>>
>
> So you are not interested in the general question of whether Bell
> inequality violations can be explained in a local way in a model with
> multiple copies?
>

Not really. The original claim was that the Everettian many worlds was
sufficient for a local explanation of the Bell correlations. It would seem
that you are acknowledging that this original claim was false, and the
extensive modifications to the original Everett model are necessary. I
doubt that this will succeed either, but at least we can agree that simple
Everettian models do not work in this way.

Bell was interested in a proof-of-principle that would cover arbitrary
> local theories (including untestable ones with local hidden variables), so
> likewise I'm giving you a proof-of-principle argument that Bell's proof
> doesn't rule out local models with local copying of observers.
>

That is where the problems creep in. Especially for people like Rubin. The
idea seems to be that if one can find a model to which Bell's original
proof does not apply, then that model thereby gives a local explanation for
the correlations. That just shows that these people have no understanding
of simple logic, much less an understanding of the necessary physics.
Bypassing Bell's theorem does not, of itself, make a theory local.

In any case, there are in fact variants of Everett which involve infinite
> collections of local copies, see
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#ManyMind with the line "A
> curious feature of this theory is that in order to get the observer’s
> mental state in some way to supervene on his physical state, Albert and
> Loewer associate with each observer a continuous infinity of minds."
>

Albert and Loewer's Many minds theory has been rejected by its creators as
inescapably dualistic. Albert, in particular, is now completely scathing
about the many minds idea.

Mark Rubin is also mentioned in
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#WhyMWI as a physicist
> who's worked on analyzing the way MWI can explain quantum observations in a
> local way, and Rubin likewise talks about a continuous infinity of copies
> on p. 14 of his paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079
>

Rubin is one of those who seems to think that if Bell's theorem is
bypassed, the resulting theory is necessarily local. He is just deluded.

> 'To avoid being led to the conclusion that our formalism erroneously
> implies equal probabilities for all outcomes regardless of the magnet
> orientations (Ballentine, 1973; Graham, 1973), we proceed along the lines
> of Deutsch’s (1985) modification to the Everett interpretation and regard,
> for example, the third and fourth lines of eq. (44) as respectively
> representing continuous infinities of identical observers O(1) and O(2).
> The two terms in eq. (64) or eq. (65) then represent continuous
> infinities of two different types of observers (“saw-up” and “saw-down”),
> and the four terms in the operator in the second member of eq. (66)
> represent continuous infinities of four different types of pairs of
> observers (”saw-up/saw-up,” “saw-up/saw-down,” etc.). The relative number
> of each type, as well as the specific nature of each type (states of
> awareness of the observers), is governed by the expectation value of the
> corresponding term in the initial state |ψ0, t0⟩.'
>

That is all very well. But this goes well beyond Schrodinger's equation,
and no explanation for the splitting of the infinite number of copies into
the ratios given by the branch weights is ever given. Like many of these
theories, the appeal is ultimately to some form of magic. None of this is
in the mathematics of quantum theory. It is all made-up fairy stories.

Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if
>>> Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle,

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On 3/22/2022 8:34 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality
violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each
measurement results in multiple local copies of the experimenter,
there is no good reason to impose the restriction that a given
measurement which can yield one of two possible results (spin-up or
spin-down) only results in two local copies, as opposed to say 4
copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that measurement, and 4 copies of
Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies of Alice that saw
spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.

Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where
if Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are
guaranteed to see the same result, but if they choose different
polarizer angles, they see the same result only 1/4 of the time,
according to QM predictions (these probabilities would violate one of
Bell's inequalities and thus be impossible to explain with
one-universe local realism without superdeterminism). Then if both are
split 8 ways as above, when they get together locally to compare
results, if it turns out that they both chose the same detector angle,
the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob copies with the 4 spin-up
Alice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down Bobs to the 4
spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when they get
together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs with
3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also
matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down
Bob with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist
explanation of the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of
them getting the same result when they choose different angles.

No matter what the angles are the splits are 50/50 if the interactions
are local because the photons are circularly polarized, so a linear
filter passes half independent of the angle.

Brent

This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies when
they get together to compare results will still work even if they
perform a long sequence of measurements before getting together to
compare results, I gave you a description of how the
splitting-and-matching rule would work in this case in the last few
paragraphs of my message at
https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.html

Jesse

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:55 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra wrote:

Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from
the start.

Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather
confused. We should sort out exactly where we agree and where
we disagree.

In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are
light-hours apart so they can set the polarizers and run the
whole experiment, including recording the N results while
still spacelike.

Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob
were both able to collect results from N trials before they met.
Then there are 2^N copies of each experimenter, and a potential
(2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they meet. The trouble to be explained is
that there are actually only 2^N pairs in a real experiment, each
with inequality-violating correlations. What has happened to all
the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which have
correlations violating the quantum predictions.)

Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On 3/22/2022 7:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra wrote:

Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the
start.

Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused.
We should sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.

In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours
apart so they can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment,
including recording the N results while still spacelike.

Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were
both able to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there
are 2^N copies of each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs
when they meet. The trouble to be explained is that there are actually
only 2^N pairs in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating
correlations. What has happened to all the extra pairings that MWI
must produce? (Most of which have correlations violating the quantum
predictions.)

Don't you mean (2^N)x(2^N). Here's the cases for N=4

There are 16 different Alices and Bobs per MWI and the array shows the
number of agreements in their notebooks when they meet. It's symmetric
so I've only shown half.

Brent

Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9bb8996d-e5d7-ea81-895d-0ce23d0d7c68%40gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-03-22 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:50 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality
>> violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement
>> results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good
>> reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield
>> one of two possible results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two
>> local copies, as opposed to say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that
>> measurement, and 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies
>> of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.
>>
>
> Since the relative angle can be any real number, you need an infinite
> number of copies to be able to produce any real number as the probability.
> There is no known reason why individuals should appear in an infinite
> number of copies. This is not implied by Everett or by the Schrodinger
> equation. It is just a made-up fantasy with no evidential backing.
>

So you are not interested in the general question of whether Bell
inequality violations can be explained in a local way in a model with
multiple copies? Bell was interested in a proof-of-principle that would
cover arbitrary local theories (including untestable ones with local hidden
variables), so likewise I'm giving you a proof-of-principle argument that
Bell's proof doesn't rule out local models with local copying of observers.

In any case, there are in fact variants of Everett which involve infinite
collections of local copies, see
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#ManyMind with the line "A
curious feature of this theory is that in order to get the observer’s
mental state in some way to supervene on his physical state, Albert and
Loewer associate with each observer a continuous infinity of minds." Mark
Rubin is also mentioned in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#WhyMWI as a physicist
who's worked on analyzing the way MWI can explain quantum observations in a
local way, and Rubin likewise talks about a continuous infinity of copies
on p. 14 of his paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079

'To avoid being led to the conclusion that our formalism erroneously
implies equal probabilities for all outcomes regardless of the magnet
orientations (Ballentine, 1973; Graham, 1973), we proceed along the lines
of Deutsch’s (1985) modification to the Everett interpretation and regard,
for example, the third and fourth lines of eq. (44) as respectively
representing continuous infinities of identical observers O(1) and O(2).
The two terms in eq. (64) or eq. (65) then represent continuous
infinities of two different types of observers (“saw-up” and “saw-down”),
and the four terms in the operator in the second member of eq. (66)
represent continuous infinities of four different types of pairs of
observers (”saw-up/saw-up,” “saw-up/saw-down,” etc.). The relative number
of each type, as well as the specific nature of each type (states of
awareness of the observers), is governed by the expectation value of the
corresponding term in the initial state |ψ0, t0⟩.'

>
> Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if
>> Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are guaranteed to
>> see the same result, but if they choose different polarizer angles, they
>> see the same result only 1/4 of the time, according to QM predictions
>>
>
> This is not the quantum prediction for an arbitrary polarizer angle..
>

Bell test experiments usually involve experiments choosing between some
finite number of agreed-upon options for polarizer angles, and in any case
you can always just increase the number of copies to deal with arbitrary
combinations of polarizer angles, though allowing a continuous infinity of
possible angles would no doubt require a continuous infinity of copies as
in the versions of the Everett interpretation proposed by Albert/Loewer and
Rubin.

>
>
> (these probabilities would violate one of Bell's inequalities and thus be
>> impossible to explain with one-universe local realism without
>> superdeterminism). Then if both are split 8 ways as above, when they get
>> together locally to compare results, if it turns out that they both
>> chose the same detector angle, the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob
>> copies with the 4 spin-up Alice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down
>> Bobs to the 4 spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when
>> they get together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs
>> with 3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also
>> matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down Bob
>> with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist explanation of
>> the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of them getting the
>> same result when they choose different angles.
>>
>
>

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism


Since nobody has come up with a means of detecting an Everett MWI split, 
where's the pay off? Now, several physicists, like Guth, Linde, and Vilenkin, 
have postulated tons of parallel splits, but the process is eternal 
inflation.Allegedly, some astronomers and physics believes that have sighted 
dents in the universe where various cosms banged together. Or, their telescopes 
needed lense wipes?

-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 11:34 pm
Subject: Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality violations 
can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement results in 
multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good reason to impose 
the restriction that a given measurement which can yield one of two possible 
results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two local copies, as opposed to 
say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that measurement, and 4 copies of Bob 
that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 
copies of Alice that saw spin-up. 
Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if Alice 
and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are guaranteed to see the 
same result, but if they choose different polarizer angles, they see the same 
result only 1/4 of the time, according to QM predictions (these probabilities 
would violate one of Bell's inequalities and thus be impossible to explain with 
one-universe local realism without superdeterminism). Then if both are split 8 
ways as above, when they get together locally to compare results, if it turns 
out that they both chose the same detector angle, the universe can match the 4 
spin-up Bob copies with the 4 spin-up Alice copies and likewise match the 4 
spin-down Bobs to the 4 spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, 
when they get together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs 
with 3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also 
matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down Bob with 1 
spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist explanation of the QM 
prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of them getting the same result 
when they choose different angles.
This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies when they get 
together to compare results will still work even if they perform a long 
sequence of measurements before getting together to compare results, I gave you 
a description of how the splitting-and-matching rule would work in this case in 
the last few paragraphs of my message at 
https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.html

Jesse
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:55 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

 On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
  
   On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra  wrote:


 Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.
 
 
  Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We should 
sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.

   
 
 In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours apart so they 
can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment, including recording the N 
results while still spacelike.


Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were both able 
to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there are 2^N copies of 
each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they meet. The 
trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N pairs in a real 
experiment, each with inequality-violating correlations. What has happened to 
all the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which have correlations 
violating the quantum predictions.)
Bruce-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality
> violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement
> results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good
> reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield
> one of two possible results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two
> local copies, as opposed to say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that
> measurement, and 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies
> of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.
>

Since the relative angle can be any real number, you need an infinite
number of copies to be able to produce any real number as the probability.
There is no known reason why individuals should appear in an infinite
number of copies. This is not implied by Everett or by the Schrodinger
equation. It is just a made-up fantasy with no evidential backing.

Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if
> Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are guaranteed to
> see the same result, but if they choose different polarizer angles, they
> see the same result only 1/4 of the time, according to QM predictions
>

This is not the quantum prediction for an arbitrary polarizer angle..


(these probabilities would violate one of Bell's inequalities and thus be
> impossible to explain with one-universe local realism without
> superdeterminism). Then if both are split 8 ways as above, when they get
> together locally to compare results, if it turns out that they both
> chose the same detector angle, the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob
> copies with the 4 spin-up Alice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down
> Bobs to the 4 spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when
> they get together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs
> with 3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also
> matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down Bob
> with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist explanation of
> the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of them getting the
> same result when they choose different angles.
>

As above. This has nothing to do with MWI. It does not work in general. It
is only a wet dream of yours, without any evidential backing.

This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies when they
> get together to compare results will still work even if they perform a long
> sequence of measurements before getting together to compare results, I gave
> you a description of how the splitting-and-matching rule would work in this
> case in the last few paragraphs of my message at
> https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.html
>


 The matching you require is entirely magical -- without physical basis.

Bruce

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTghqwG6MJ6UqUOii8qsP9ki5vZfKNuuiaEYmzMjfTHPA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

Rare? Sparse? That is just semantics, like rich and billionaire. If it looked 
like the Exo planets were brimming with oxygen and nitrogen, and plooching out 
'mysterious' radio signals, pollution has even been mentioned, then the funding 
for bigger and better telescopes plus, plans for laser-driven probes would be 
well under way. As of now, the funding for these seemssparse. 

-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

 I agree.  Life occurred on Earth almost as soon as it was cool enough to be 
possible.  My bet would be that every planet on which there is liquid H2O has 
life.  So it's not rare...but it's still very sparse.

 Brent

 On 3/22/2022 3:17 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:

 Why do we have to conclude that carbon-water based life is rare?  It developed 
as quickly as can be expected on Earth as soon as the planet was formed and the 
temperature cooled down enough to make life possible.  We have made great 
strides in breaking down every component of single celled life into smaller 
processes that could conceivably have arisen through natural processes.  This 
includes plausible steps to all cellular metabolic processes, most of the steps 
that could lead to replicating nucleotide chains (probably through self 
replicating small RNA molecules) and the formation of lipid bilayer cell 
membranes.  There could be many planets around the that have or had carbon 
based single-celled life.  The problem is, we could only detect distant life if 
succeeded in taking over enough of the planet to create a detectable signal in 
the atmosphere.  Of the 17 known planets in their star's "Goldilocks" zone, we 
know of at least one that definitely has life.   
  Maybe carbon based life is exceedingly unlikely, but I think it is way to 
early to come to any frim conclusions. 
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis 
  Dirk   

   On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 12:23:19 PM UTC-7 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

 At some points scientists or AI should be able to create life from basic 
elements and providing a starter environment that results in microbial life. We 
obviously don't possess the info to do this yet. We been trying, more of , than 
on, since Miller-Urey. Because we have not we must conclude that carbon-water 
life must be very rare. On the other hand, life as we don't know it could be 
hypothesized as with scifi tales as crystals or gas clouds (Hoyle's The Black 
Cloud 1957). Spoiler, The Cloud didn't know that life was possible on planets. 
But even if life didn't start this way on our planet, it does not preclude that 
we couldn't come up with another way?

   -Original Message-
 From: Lawrence Crowell 
 To: Everything List 
 Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2022 5:46 am
 Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

  This is the problem on the origin of life. This is the point where 
evolutionary theory fades into a blur. Curiously we have a better working 
handle on how the universe emerged than how life did. 
  LC

   On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:15:41 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:57 AM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

> A key connector between RNA and DNA are ribosomes. These complexes of 
> polypeptides and RNA somehow emerged so that RNA could used as a temporary 
> signal and to connect aminoacids in an acetylated from to RNA. Before then, 
> somehow RNA information was translated into polypeptides. How this happened 
> is unknown and what fueled the evolution of ribosomes is also unknown.

 The details on how ribosomes evolved is unknown, but one of the first 
steps must have been the evolution of the 20 different types of transfer RNA, 
one for each of the 20 different amino acids that life uses; tRNA  is 
small,none of them are longer than 90 nucleotides, so that shouldn't be too 
hard. But an even more fundamental question would be how the arbitrary genetic 
code that life universally uses evolved, and I think "arbitrary" is an apt 
description of the genetic code. For example, the nucleotide triplet CAU in 
messenger RNA symbolizes the amino acid histidine, but there are no special 
chemical characteristics that relate one to the other. One type of transfer RNA 
has an anticodon that connects to the CAU triplet of messenger RNA like a key 
fitting into a ock. At another part of the transfer RNA molecule an amino acid 
can be attached, in this case histidine. However transfer RNA can't tell one 
amino acid from another, the amino acid attachment part is identical in all 
tRNA molecules, but in practice only those that have the anticodon for CAU are 
attached to histidine. The reason for this is an enzyme (aminoacyl-tRNA 
synthetase). This enzyme can tell one amino acid from another, and it can tell 
one tRNA molecule from another, and it can attach an amino acid to it. This 
enzyme does

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-03-22 Thread Jesse Mazer

If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality
violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement
results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good
reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield
one of two possible results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two
local copies, as opposed to say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that
measurement, and 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies
of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up.

Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if
Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are guaranteed to
see the same result, but if they choose different polarizer angles, they
see the same result only 1/4 of the time, according to QM predictions
(these probabilities would violate one of Bell's inequalities and thus be
impossible to explain with one-universe local realism without
superdeterminism). Then if both are split 8 ways as above, when they get
together locally to compare results, if it turns out that they both
chose the same detector angle, the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob
copies with the 4 spin-up Alice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down
Bobs to the 4 spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when
they get together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs
with 3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also
matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down Bob
with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist explanation of
the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of them getting the
same result when they choose different angles.

This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies when they
get together to compare results will still work even if they perform a long
sequence of measurements before getting together to compare results, I gave
you a description of how the splitting-and-matching rule would work in this
case in the last few paragraphs of my message at
https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.html

Jesse

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:55 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.
>>>
>>
>> Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We
>> should sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.
>>
>>
>> In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours apart so
>> they can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment, including
>> recording the N results while still spacelike.
>>
>
>
> Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were both
> able to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there are 2^N
> copies of each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they
> meet. The trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N pairs
> in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating correlations. What has
> happened to all the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which
> have correlations violating the quantum predictions.)
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

Look, I will be the first to admit it if anyone finds carbon life. They reason 
I am a naysayer is that we haven't seen a clue in the solar system or one of 
the 500 exo planets. Secondly, like with the Urey-Miller experiments of ancient 
times, no luck there either. So how long do we keep banging our heads against 
the wall writing on our star maps "here be dragons." Do I know this for sure? 
No.  

-Original Message-
From: Dirk Van Niekerk 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

Why do we have to conclude that carbon-water based life is rare?  It developed 
as quickly as can be expected on Earth as soon as the planet was formed and the 
temperature cooled down enough to make life possible.  We have made great 
strides in breaking down every component of single celled life into smaller 
processes that could conceivably have arisen through natural processes.  This 
includes plausible steps to all cellular metabolic processes, most of the steps 
that could lead to replicating nucleotide chains (probably through self 
replicating small RNA molecules) and the formation of lipid bilayer cell 
membranes.  There could be many planets around the that have or had carbon 
based single-celled life.  The problem is, we could only detect distant life if 
succeeded in taking over enough of the planet to create a detectable signal in 
the atmosphere.  Of the 17 known planets in their star's "Goldilocks" zone, we 
know of at least one that definitely has life.  
Maybe carbon based life is exceedingly unlikely, but I think it is way to early 
to come to any frim conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Dirk   

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 12:23:19 PM UTC-7 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

At some points scientists or AI should be able to create life from basic 
elements and providing a starter environment that results in microbial life. We 
obviously don't possess the info to do this yet. We been trying, more of , than 
on, since Miller-Urey. Because we have not we must conclude that carbon-water 
life must be very rare. On the other hand, life as we don't know it could be 
hypothesized as with scifi tales as crystals or gas clouds (Hoyle's The Black 
Cloud 1957). Spoiler, The Cloud didn't know that life was possible on planets. 
But even if life didn't start this way on our planet, it does not preclude that 
we couldn't come up with another way?

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2022 5:46 am
Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

This is the problem on the origin of life. This is the point where evolutionary 
theory fades into a blur. Curiously we have a better working handle on how the 
universe emerged than how life did.
LC

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:15:41 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:57 AM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:

> A key connector between RNA and DNA are ribosomes. These complexes of 
> polypeptides and RNA somehow emerged so that RNA could used as a temporary 
> signal and to connect aminoacids in an acetylated from to RNA. Before then, 
> somehow RNA information was translated into polypeptides. How this happened 
> is unknown and what fueled the evolution of ribosomes is also unknown.

The details on how ribosomes evolved is unknown, but one of the first steps 
must have been the evolution of the 20 different types of transfer RNA, one for 
each of the 20 different amino acids that life uses; tRNA  is small,none of 
them are longer than 90 nucleotides, so that shouldn't be too hard. But an even 
more fundamental question would be how the arbitrary genetic code that life 
universally uses evolved, and I think "arbitrary" is an apt description of the 
genetic code. For example, the nucleotide triplet CAU in messenger RNA 
symbolizes the amino acid histidine, but there are no special chemical 
characteristics that relate one to the other. One type of transfer RNA has an 
anticodon that connects to the CAU triplet of messenger RNA like a key fitting 
into a ock. At another part of the transfer RNA molecule an amino acid can be 
attached, in this case histidine. However transfer RNA can't tell one amino 
acid from another, the amino acid attachment part is identical in all tRNA 
molecules, but in practice only those that have the anticodon for CAU are 
attached to histidine. The reason for this is an enzyme (aminoacyl-tRNA 
synthetase). This enzyme can tell one amino acid from another, and it can tell 
one tRNA molecule from another, and it can attach an amino acid to it. This 
enzyme does NOT look at the anticodon at all but at another part of the 
transfer RNA, the DHU loop. In the lab the DHU loop from one type of tRNA has 
been grafted onto another type of tRNA and that changes the genetic code. It's 
also interesting that this enzyme is a protein encoded by, what else, the 
genetic code. The genetic code does not

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra  wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.
>>
>
> Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We should
> sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.
>
>
> In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours apart so
> they can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment, including
> recording the N results while still spacelike.
>

Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were both
able to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there are 2^N
copies of each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they
meet. The trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N pairs
in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating correlations. What has
happened to all the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which
have correlations violating the quantum predictions.)

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism




On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra  wrote:


Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.


Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We 
should sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.



The violation of Bell's inequalities proves that QM cannot have an
underlying local deterministic theory, i.e. one in which the
measurement
outcomes arise deterministically as a result of local
interactions. In
Aspect's experiments, the polarizer angles being set at space-like
separations, rules out local hidden variable theories where the
photons
are still influenced by both polarizers via local interactions.


Yes.

What the violation of Bell's inequalities does not prove, is that
QM is
non-local


Well, these results certainly show that some work needs to be done if 
you are to recover a completely local theory.


What is true is that there is a problem with collapse
interpretations in precisely the sort of entangled states used in
Bell-type experiments,


I think there are problems in non-collapse interpretations as well. It 
is a mistake to put all the problems down to collapse models -- the 
collapse in most models can be eliminated, and that does not make 
these theories local.


because the measurement outcome at one location
provides one with information about the other measurement outcome.


That is not true in general. If the polarizers are known to be 
parallel, then Alice's result, whatever it may be, tells her that 
Bob's result will be the opposite. But this is not the case in 
general. If the polarizers are not parallel (and not known in advance 
to be parallel), then all Alice can infer from her result is that Bob 
could get either up or down. She cannot know which, and she cannot, 
without knowing the relative polarizer angle, assign probabilities to 
the two possible results. By hypothesis, in this situation, she does 
not know the relative polarizer angle, so she has no information about 
which result Bob will get.


Even if she knows the relative angle and she knows her result, she can 
only calculate the probabilities for Bob's result by assuming FTL 
propagation of her result to Bob's particle.  So I don't see how that 
eliminates non-locality.  MWI would eliminate non-locality by saying 
Alice splits and gets both results and Bob splits and gets both results 
and then...by some unexplained means...only the right Alice/Bob pairs 
meet or are given the right weight.





If the polarizers are parallel or antiparallel then the
measurement result
at one site provides one with perfect information about the
measurement
outcome at the other side.

While doing the experiment with parallel or anti-parallel polarizers
does not prove that QM has no underlying local deterministic theory,
that's also unnecessary as this is already an established fact.


I thought that was what was in dispute here.

We can
then use that fact and say that because we already know that Bob's
photon does not decide in a deterministic way whether or not to move
through the polarizer based on the local physical state, that Alice
having the information on whether or not Bob's photon will move
through
Bob's polarizer, demonstrates a nonlocal feature of QM.


But Alice does not have any such information after her measurement.


But, of course,
this is only true in collapse interpretations where in Bob's sector
there exists a unique result for Alice. This is not the case in
the MWI,
so here there is no issue with non-locality at all.


That does not follow, because, rather than Alice not having a unique 
result in Bob's sector, it is the case that Alice has split into two 
branches, in each of which she has a definite result. So when she 
meets Bob, he also splits into a copy for each of Alice's sectors.
Their situations are symmetric, so Bob must split when the particle 
reaches his detector and he measures both possible results.   Then there 
will be four Alice/Bob pairs.  And this is true in MWI even when the 
polarizers are set at the same angle.  They are linear polarizers and 
circularly polarized photons, so in every interaction the probability of 
0 or 1 is 50/50 if only local interactions are considered.


So, for Bob, the Alice he meets will have a definite result. There is 
no ambiguity coming from the many worlds situation here. Whenever Bob 
looks to Alice, he knows he will see the definite result that she 
obtained.


One cannot avoid the consequences of Bell's theorem by this manoeuvre. 
Even if one can claim that the fact that Alice splits into two copies, 
one for each result she could get, means that she does not (from Bob's 
perspective) get a definite result voids the applicability of Bell's 
theorem, this still does not provide a local explanation for the

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra  wrote:

>
> Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.
>

Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We should
sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree.

The violation of Bell's inequalities proves that QM cannot have an
> underlying local deterministic theory, i.e. one in which the measurement
> outcomes arise deterministically as a result of local interactions. In
> Aspect's experiments, the polarizer angles being set at space-like
> separations, rules out local hidden variable theories where the photons
> are still influenced by both polarizers via local interactions.
>

Yes.

> What the violation of Bell's inequalities does not prove, is that QM is
> non-local

Well, these results certainly show that some work needs to be done if you
are to recover a completely local theory.

What is true is that there is a problem with collapse
> interpretations in precisely the sort of entangled states used in
> Bell-type experiments,

I think there are problems in non-collapse interpretations as well. It is a
mistake to put all the problems down to collapse models -- the collapse in
most models can be eliminated, and that does not make these theories local.

because the measurement outcome at one location
> provides one with information about the other measurement outcome.

That is not true in general. If the polarizers are known to be parallel,
then Alice's result, whatever it may be, tells her that Bob's result will
be the opposite. But this is not the case in general. If the polarizers are
not parallel (and not known in advance to be parallel), then all Alice can
infer from her result is that Bob could get either up or down. She cannot
know which, and she cannot, without knowing the relative polarizer angle,
assign probabilities to the two possible results. By hypothesis, in this
situation, she does not know the relative polarizer angle, so she has no
information about which result Bob will get.

If the polarizers are parallel or antiparallel then the measurement result
> at one site provides one with perfect information about the measurement
> outcome at the other side.
>
> While doing the experiment with parallel or anti-parallel polarizers
> does not prove that QM has no underlying local deterministic theory,
> that's also unnecessary as this is already an established fact.

I thought that was what was in dispute here.

We can
> then use that fact and say that because we already know that Bob's
> photon does not decide in a deterministic way whether or not to move
> through the polarizer based on the local physical state, that Alice
> having the information on whether or not Bob's photon will move through
> Bob's polarizer, demonstrates a nonlocal feature of QM.

But Alice does not have any such information after her measurement.

But, of course,
> this is only true in collapse interpretations where in Bob's sector
> there exists a unique result for Alice. This is not the case in the MWI,
> so here there is no issue with non-locality at all.
>

That does not follow, because, rather than Alice not having a unique result
in Bob's sector, it is the case that Alice has split into two branches, in
each of which she has a definite result. So when she meets Bob, he also
splits into a copy for each of Alice's sectors. So, for Bob, the Alice he
meets will have a definite result. There is no ambiguity coming from the
many worlds situation here. Whenever Bob looks to Alice, he knows he will
see the definite result that she obtained.

One cannot avoid the consequences of Bell's theorem by this manoeuvre. Even
if one can claim that the fact that Alice splits into two copies, one for
each result she could get, means that she does not (from Bob's perspective)
get a definite result voids the applicability of Bell's theorem, this still
does not provide a local explanation for the violation of the Bell
inequalities. The violation of these inequalities is an established
experimental fact, and an explanation of this fact is required. If it is
claimed that many worlds can provide a local explanation, then it is up to
those who make this claim to provide this local explanation.

This you have failed to do. Merely claiming that Bell's theorem does not
apply in many worlds theories (non-collapse theories) is not an explanation
of anything. The correlations are still there, and still in need of
explanation.

One can then say that there is still an issue with locality in Bell-type
> experiments due to the correlations depending on the relative angle. The
> relative angle is only available non-locally.

Only in Aspect-type experiments where the polarizer angles are set at
spacelike separations. This was done to rule out the possibility of some
local influence on the hidden variables that might be possible if the
detector angles were known at the time of the creation of the entangled
pair, as in the original Freedman-Clauser

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

2022-03-22 Thread smitra

On 19-03-2022 17:35, John Clark wrote:

For life to be life 2 things are needed:

1) Heritability, the ability of a system to preserve information and
duplicate it.
2) Metabolism, the ability to catalyze chemical reactions.

Once something has those two abilities then Evolution can take over
and make things more complex. For this reason many think the first
living creature didn't contain any DNA but had RNA instead. RNA is
easier to make than DNA and can preserve and duplicate information,
not as well as DNA can but it can do it, and proteins can't do that at
all. And some strands of RNA, because they can fold up into many
complex shapes unlike DNA which always has the same boring double
helix shape, can catalyze chemical reactions, RNA can't do it as well
as proteins can but DNA can't do it at all. RNA is a jack of all
trades but master of none, and something like that must've been around
when life started.

However, nobody has ever been able to find a single strand of RNA that
can do all of that at once and duplicate itself without the help of
very specialized and complex proteins, and it's unlikely anybody ever
will (and of course DNA can't do it either). But in yesterday's issue
of the journal Nature Communications researchers report they have
found a replicator network made of 5 different types of RNA that, by
working together, can duplicate the entire network, if any one of the
5 were removed the other 4 strands couldn't replicate themselves.

When they put their 5 strands of RNA into drops of water suspended in
oil and let it reproduce for hundreds of generations they found that
their primitive network made many more mistakes in replication than
modern cells do, and most of those mistakes resulted in disaster, but
sometimes it produced an improvement, a network that could reproduce
faster or make use of simple chemicals in the environment that it
could not before. In other words it became more complex, in still
other words it started to undergo Darwinian Evolution. The ability to
undergo Darwinian Evolution is a pretty good definition of life.

I doubt anybody will ever be able to definitively prove this is the
only way life could have started, but I think they have demonstrated a
plausible way in which life _COULD_ have started.

Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple
replicator network [1]

This is very interesting stuff. There exists quite a bit of indirect
evidence for the RNA world. Jack Szostak explains that here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU=643s

Saibal

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis [2]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d2f69568ec46de6a3f7cf137aa1f40c%40zonnet.nl.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-03-22 Thread smitra


On 19-03-2022 23:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 4:44 PM smitra  wrote:


On 18-03-2022 02:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:00 PM smitra  wrote:


Yes, but the MWI is not such a local hidden variable theory, and

it's

also not necessary to choose the angles non-locally when

discussing the

MWI.


That is an amazing claim. In the experiments under discussion

(those

of Aspect and coworkers) the selection of detector angles is made
while the particles are in flight. Consequently, this selection is
done at spacelike separations (non-locally). The whole point of

the

discussion was to establish whether or not MWI can provide a local
account of the correlations in this case.

It seems from your comment here that you admit that MWI cannot

provide

a local account of the correlations in the seminal case of

non-local

polarizer settings.



The local account is simply the explanation of how that non-locality
was
put into the experiment and would propagate into the results.


The non-locality was not put into the experiment -- it was inherent in
the non-separable entangled singlet state.





In the MWI
(but not in collapse interpretations) this amounts to nothing more
than
Alice and Bob bringing two books to their destination, flipping a
coin
to decide which book they'll read first. Depending on the outcome of
the
coin flips, there will either be a perfect correlation or no
correlation
between the sequence of letters they read.


What a load of utter garbage. If you are reduced to this level of
nonsense then it is clear that you have run out of ideas.


Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start.

The violation of Bell's inequalities proves that QM cannot have an 
underlying local deterministic theory, i.e. one in which the measurement 
outcomes arise deterministically as a result of local interactions. In 
Aspect's experiments, the polarizer angles being set at space-like 
separations, rules out local hidden variable theories where the photons 
are still influenced by both polarizers via local interactions.


What the violation of Bell's inequalities does not prove, is that QM is 
non-local. What is true is that there is a problem with collapse 
interpretations in precisely the sort of entangled states used in 
Bell-type experiments, because the measurement outcome at one location 
provides one with information about the other measurement outcome. If 
the polarizers are parallel or antiparallel then the measurement result 
at one site provides one with perfect information about the measurement 
outcome at the other side.


While doing the experiment with parallel or anti-parallel polarizers 
does not prove that QM has no underlying local deterministic theory, 
that's also unnecessary as this is already an established fact. We can 
then use that fact and say that because we already know that Bob's 
photon does not decide in a deterministic way whether or not to move 
through the polarizer based on the local physical state, that Alice 
having the information on whether or not Bob's photon will move through 
Bob's polarizer, demonstrates a nonlocal feature of QM. But, of course, 
this is only true in collapse interpretations where in Bob's sector 
there exists a unique result for Alice. This is not the case in the MWI, 
so here there is no issue with non-locality at all.


One can then say that there is still an issue with locality in Bell-type 
experiments due to the correlations depending on the relative angle. The 
relative angle is only available non-locally. However this sort of 
non-locality is put in by hand, and what you put in must come out in the 
final results. Take e.g. this trivial experiment. Two copies are made of 
a file containing a random bitstring and given to Alice and Bob. Alice 
and Bob move away from each other, and at a spacelike separations they 
both apply a random cyclic permutation to the bitstrings and save the 
results in their file, overwriting the old data by te new data. They 
then meet each other and compute the correlations of their bitstrings.


Obviously, the correlation will be (almost) zero unless they have chosen 
the same cyclic permutation. And this is also information that is only 
available non-locally. So, the mere fact that a correlation depends on 
nonlocal information that was put into the experiment, does not 
demonstrate that there is an essential non-local feature in the laws of 
physics. What you out into an experiment that affects the results must 
come out. In the Bell-type experiments this is a useful method to 
demonstrate to rule out a local dependence on both polarizer settings. 
The mere fact that the correlation then depends on a non-locally chosen 
relative angle is not the argument here.


Saibal




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

I agree.  Life occurred on Earth almost as soon as it was cool enough to 
be possible.  My bet would be that every planet on which there is liquid 
H2O has life.  So it's not rare...but it's still very sparse.


Brent

On 3/22/2022 3:17 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:
Why do we have to conclude that carbon-water based life is rare? It 
developed as quickly as can be expected on Earth as soon as the planet 
was formed and the temperature cooled down enough to make life 
possible.  We have made great strides in breaking down every component 
of single celled life into smaller processes that could conceivably 
have arisen through natural processes.  This includes plausible steps 
to all cellular metabolic processes, most of the steps that could lead 
to replicating nucleotide chains (probably through self replicating 
small RNA molecules) and the formation of lipid bilayer cell 
membranes.  There could be many planets around the that have or had 
carbon based single-celled life.  The problem is, we could only detect 
distant life if succeeded in taking over enough of the planet to 
create a detectable signal in the atmosphere.  Of the 17 known planets 
in their star's "Goldilocks" zone, we know of at least one that 
definitely has life.


Maybe carbon based life is exceedingly unlikely, but I think it is way 
to early to come to any frim conclusions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Dirk

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 12:23:19 PM UTC-7 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

At some points scientists or AI should be able to create life from
basic elements and providing a starter environment that results in
microbial life. We obviously don't possess the info to do this
yet. We been trying, more of , than on, since Miller-Urey. Because
we have not we must conclude that carbon-water life must be very
rare. On the other hand, life as we don't know it could be
hypothesized as with scifi tales as crystals or gas clouds
(Hoyle's The Black Cloud 1957). Spoiler, The Cloud didn't know
that life was possible on planets. But even if life didn't start
this way on our planet, it does not preclude that we couldn't come
up with another way?


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2022 5:46 am
Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

This is the problem on the origin of life. This is the point where
evolutionary theory fades into a blur. Curiously we have a better
working handle on how the universe emerged than how life did.

LC

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:15:41 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:57 AM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:

> A key connector between RNA and DNA are ribosomes. These
complexes of polypeptides and RNA somehow emerged so that
RNA could used as a temporary signal and to connect
aminoacids in an acetylated from to RNA. Before then,
somehow RNA information was translated into polypeptides.
How this happened is unknown and what fueled the evolution
of ribosomes is also unknown.


The details on how ribosomes evolved is unknown, but one of
the first steps must have been the evolution of the 20
different types of transfer RNA, one for each of the 20
different amino acids that life uses; tRNA  is small,none of
them are longer than 90 nucleotides, so that shouldn't be too
hard. But an even more fundamental question would be how the
arbitrary genetic code that life universally uses evolved, and
I think "arbitrary" is an apt description of the genetic code.
For example, the nucleotide triplet CAU in messenger RNA
symbolizes the amino acid histidine, but there are no special
chemical characteristics that relate one to the other. One
type of transfer RNA has an anticodon that connects to the CAU
triplet of messenger RNA like a key fitting into a ock. At
another part of the transfer RNA molecule an amino acid can be
attached, in this case histidine. However transfer RNA can't
tell one amino acid from another, the amino acid attachment
part is identical in all tRNA molecules, but in practice only
those that have the anticodon for CAU are attached to
histidine. The reason for this is an enzyme (aminoacyl-tRNA
synthetase). This enzyme can tell one amino acid from another,
and it can tell one tRNA molecule from another, and it can
attach an amino acid to it. This enzyme does NOT look at the
anticodon at all but at another part of the transfer RNA, the
DHU loop. In the lab the DHU loop from one type of tRNA has
been grafted onto another type of tRNA and that changes the
genetic code. It's also interesting that this enzyme is a
protein

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth

2022-03-22 Thread Dirk Van Niekerk

Why do we have to conclude that carbon-water based life is rare?  It 
developed as quickly as can be expected on Earth as soon as the planet was 
formed and the temperature cooled down enough to make life possible.  We 
have made great strides in breaking down every component of single celled 
life into smaller processes that could conceivably have arisen through 
natural processes.  This includes plausible steps to all cellular metabolic 
processes, most of the steps that could lead to replicating nucleotide 
chains (probably through self replicating small RNA molecules) and the 
formation of lipid bilayer cell membranes.  There could be many planets 
around the that have or had carbon based single-celled life.  The problem 
is, we could only detect distant life if succeeded in taking over enough of 
the planet to create a detectable signal in the atmosphere.  Of the 17 
known planets in their star's "Goldilocks" zone, we know of at least one 
that definitely has life.  

Maybe carbon based life is exceedingly unlikely, but I think it is way to 
early to come to any frim conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Dirk   

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 12:23:19 PM UTC-7 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> At some points scientists or AI should be able to create life from basic 
> elements and providing a starter environment that results in microbial 
> life. We obviously don't possess the info to do this yet. We been trying, 
> more of , than on, since Miller-Urey. Because we have not we must conclude 
> that carbon-water life must be very rare. On the other hand, life as we 
> don't know it could be hypothesized as with scifi tales as crystals or gas 
> clouds (Hoyle's The Black Cloud 1957). Spoiler, The Cloud didn't know that 
> life was possible on planets. But even if life didn't start this way on our 
> planet, it does not preclude that we couldn't come up with another way?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Mar 21, 2022 5:46 am
> Subject: Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth
>
> This is the problem on the origin of life. This is the point where 
> evolutionary theory fades into a blur. Curiously we have a better working 
> handle on how the universe emerged than how life did. 
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 9:15:41 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 8:57 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > A key connector between RNA and DNA are ribosomes. These complexes of 
> polypeptides and RNA somehow emerged so that RNA could used as a temporary 
> signal and to connect aminoacids in an acetylated from to RNA. Before then, 
> somehow RNA information was translated into polypeptides. How this happened 
> is unknown and what fueled the evolution of ribosomes is also unknown.
>
>
> The details on how ribosomes evolved is unknown, but one of the first 
> steps must have been the evolution of the 20 different types of transfer 
> RNA, one for each of the 20 different amino acids that life uses; tRNA  is 
> small,none of them are longer than 90 nucleotides, so that shouldn't be 
> too hard. But an even more fundamental question would be how the 
> arbitrary genetic code that life universally uses evolved, and I think 
> "arbitrary" is an apt description of the genetic code. For example, the 
> nucleotide triplet CAU in messenger RNA symbolizes the amino acid 
> histidine, but there are no special chemical characteristics that relate 
> one to the other. One type of transfer RNA has an anticodon that connects 
> to the CAU triplet of messenger RNA like a key fitting into a ock. At 
> another part of the transfer RNA molecule an amino acid can be attached, in 
> this case histidine. However transfer RNA can't tell one amino acid from 
> another, the amino acid attachment part is identical in all tRNA 
> molecules, but in practice only those that have the anticodon for CAU are 
> attached to histidine. The reason for this is an enzyme (aminoacyl-tRNA 
> synthetase). This enzyme can tell one amino acid from another, and it can 
> tell one tRNA molecule from another, and it can attach an amino acid to it. 
> This enzyme does NOT look at the anticodon at all but at another part of 
> the transfer RNA, the DHU loop. In the lab the DHU loop from one type of 
> tRNA has been grafted onto another type of tRNA and that changes the 
> genetic code. It's also interesting that this enzyme is a protein encoded 
> by, what else, the genetic code. The genetic code does not reside in any 
> one of these things, it resides in all of them.
>
> Nobody knows exactly how evolution managed to make all these things, but 
> what makes this new development significant is that for the first time it 
> has been demonstrated that pure RNA, with no help from proteins or DNA, is 
> able to get on the evolutionary bandwagon.  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> evb
>
>

Re: Kamikaze Drones

The baby drone is a feature of 21st century warfare. The old Soviets long 
dreamed of sending swarms of T-54  tanks through the Fulda gap in Germany 
and conquering the continent. In this day, from what I read earlier (source not 
trustworthy) The Switchblade has a 50 lb payload of plastique that can be used 
for anti-tank attacks. The 5 lb, I don't see as useful. Putin, the KGB Mokrie 
Dela guy (wet operations) may be trapped in the past mentally? 


-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 5:44 am
Subject: Kamikaze Drones

What the Ukrainian military needs to defeat Russian artillery. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-latest-us-weapon-heading-to-ukraine-a-2-foot-long-5-pound-drone-designed-for-one-way-missions/ar-AAVkVxv
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb666f56-fd18-4c9f-a72f-d6263ccabf6en%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1557938763.970750.1647978122345%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: RNA World and the start of life on Earth