On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 10:05:14AM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Fri, 2/6/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
Russell, I expected there might be some discussion of my latest eprint on
this list. That's why I'm
Russell Standish wrote: According to Wikipedia, Born's rule is that the
probability of an observed result \lambda_i is given by \psi|P_i|\psi, where
P_i is the projection onto the eigenspace corresponding to \lambda_i of the
observable. This formula is only correct if \psi is normalised.
2009/2/8 Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com:
Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on average each has 1/N of your
original measure. I guess that's why you think the measure decreases. But
the sum of the measures is N/N of the original.
This is trivially obvious so I saw no reason
'Tis poetry!
Kim, Bruno, thanks for this wonderful dialog. Most beautiful stuff I've
read in a long time - and so spontaneous.
Cheers,
Günther
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Kim,
I have not the time to think deeply on zero, so I will answer your last
post instead :)
On 05 Feb 2009, at
Brian,
Tononi's information integration view of consciousness might fit your bill.
Overview:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6315
Paper (open access):
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42
Cheers,
Günther
Brian Tenneson wrote:
Dear Everything List,
Tegmark mentioned in an
John,
my way to the number reality was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
two books could give you the central idea:
Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations
(materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out).
The
Dear Bruno,
Some of these books I have already read (Boolos),
You mean read with pencil and paper?
Well no *grin* - it was the adopted textbook in one of the courses I
took, and I did the assigned exercises, but now flipping through the
book I realize I must go back to it again - more than
Hello Jack,
I could tell you what's wrong with his MGA, but I'm here to deal with the QS
paper first.
I appreciate your prioritizing your paper, but I would be interested in
what you find wrong with the MGA.
By the way, as I mentioned in a previous mail to John, my departure from
Günther, *please see inserted in JM: lines*
John
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
wrote:
John,
my way to the number reality was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
two books could give you the central idea:
Lakoff and Nunez: Where does
Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow the usual
quoting conventions, wrap lines etc. Below is how your text appears in mine:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:46:04AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Russell Standish wrote: According to Wikipedia, Born's rule is that the
probability of
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:47:02 +1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow the usual
quoting conventions, wrap lines etc.
I'm using hotmail, any
From: laserma...@hotmail.com To:
everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques
Mallah] Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 20:33:52 -0500 I don't understand, why is this
implied by what Jacques or I said? My comment was that the Born
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:33:52PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:47:02 +1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
Jesse, you need to fix up your email client to follow
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
All I have ever said was that effective probability given by the
squared norm of the projected eigenvector does not follow from
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:30PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: Jacques Mallah]
All I have ever said was that effective probability given
So far the responses here have not been as hostile as I feared :)
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote:
are you open to the idea
that there might be truths about subjectivity (such as
truths about what philosophers call 'qualia') which
cannot be reduced to purely
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
He must have some model in mind which tells us how
the amplitude of the branches relates to the amplitude of the
original state.
The Schrodinger equation is linear and unitary. As long as it applies (in
other words, assuming
--- On Sun, 2/8/09, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose you differentiate into N states, then on
average each has 1/N of your original measure. I guess
that's why you think the measure decreases. But the sum
of the measures is N/N of the original.
I still find this
18 matches
Mail list logo
