Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 2 Feb 2021, at 12:44, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 30 Jan 2021, at 05:06, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:19:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: >> On Friday, January 29, 2021

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 01-02-2021 07:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:10 PM smitra wrote: The core disagreement with Bruce is the following. He wrote: "However, I have not made any appeal to Copenhagen or any other particular interpretation. I am simply pointing to a physical result that must

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

> On 2 Feb 2021, at 12:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:09 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> On 31 Jan 2021, at 06:48, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> When a particle hits the screen in a double slit experiment, is that a

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 5:00:08 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 6:44 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> Why is "dualism" a dirty word? AG* > > > Because there are more civilized ways of resolving differences between > people than resorting to violence. > Is

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 6:44 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Why is "dualism" a dirty word? AG* Because there are more civilized ways of resolving differences between people than resorting to violence. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 30 Jan 2021, at 05:06, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:19:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 1/29/2021 5:52

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:09 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 31 Jan 2021, at 06:48, Alan Grayson wrote: > > When a particle hits the screen in a double slit experiment, is that a > measurement? AG > > > You can say that it is a measurement from the screen point of view. But as > screen have no

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

> On 31 Jan 2021, at 06:48, Alan Grayson wrote: > > When a particle hits the screen in a double slit experiment, is that a > measurement? AG You can say that it is a measurement from the screen point of view. But as screen have no re-accessible memory, it is better to define the measurement

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

> On 30 Jan 2021, at 12:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > There is no requirement for an infinite number of degrees of freedom. > > In physics there will never be a theory that requires infinite degrees of >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 30 Jan 2021, at 05:06, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:19:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> If you induce decoherence by measuring at the

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 30 Jan 2021, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 1:41 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 06:58, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> >> This is certainly a problem for Deutsch's interpretation of 'world'.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 29 Jan 2021, at 23:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the interference >>> pattern disappears -- you have certainly created a separate "world" for >>> each

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 29 Jan 2021, at 19:55, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 7:30:42 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 28 Jan 2021, at 02:07, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:20:15 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Jan 2021, at

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:10 PM smitra wrote: > The core disagreement with Bruce is the following. He wrote: > > "However, I have not made any appeal to Copenhagen or any other > particular interpretation. I am simply pointing to a physical result > that must be explainable by whatever

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

The core disagreement with Bruce is the following. He wrote: "However, I have not made any appeal to Copenhagen or any other particular interpretation. I am simply pointing to a physical result that must be explainable by whatever interpretation or theory you adopt." While you can do this,

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:58:59 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:20:14 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *>>> One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's > onset.*

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:20:14 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *>>> One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's onset.* >>> >>> >>> >>So says 90+ year old Alan Grayson, if one believes his claim to

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *>>> One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's >>> onset.* >> >> >> >>So says 90+ year old Alan Grayson, if one believes his claim to have >> co-authored a scientific paper with Carl Sagan. >> > > *> More evidence of

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 6:43:14 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's onset.* > > > So says 90+ year old Alan Grayson, if one believes his claim to have >

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's onset.* So says 90+ year old Alan Grayson, if one believes his claim to have co-authored a scientific paper with Carl Sagan. John K Clark See my new list at

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

*One of the features of Trumpism and Trump physics is Alzheimer's onset. You made the claim, many times, that "measurement" is an ambiguous concept, as well as "observer". AG* On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 5:41:45 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:07 AM Alan

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:07 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> For the double slit, say, a measurement occurs when a particle hits the > screen (time and location).* That's exactly what many worlds says, a measurement, if for some reason you'd like to use that word, is a change made in the universe

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

*For the double slit, say, a measurement occurs when a particle hits the screen (time and location). The observer is anyone, or anything, that records the measurement. AG* On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 4:52:29 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 6:44 AM Alan Grayson

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 6:44 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > So you tell me, what is a measurement? >> > > * > I did, several times. * [,,,] *Same with "observer"* > Show me. Talk is cheap, stop telling me that you did and show me that you did! John K Clark See my new list at Extropolis

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 4:36:50 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:48 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> More Trump physics? * > > > More profound revelations from self proclaimed Carl Sagan co-author Alan > Grayson? > > *> What's a measurement? * > > > Why on

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:48 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> More Trump physics? * More profound revelations from self proclaimed Carl Sagan co-author Alan Grayson? *> What's a measurement? * Why on earth are you asking me of all people that question?!! In many worlds it doesn't matter one iota

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

When a particle hits the screen in a double slit experiment, is that a measurement? AG On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 6:26:20 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > More Trump physics? What's a measurement? I have no clue. AG > > On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 4:27:00 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >

Re: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

More Trump physics? What's a measurement? I have no clue. AG On Saturday, January 30, 2021 at 4:27:00 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > *There is no requirement for an infinite number of degrees of freedom.* >> > > In physics there

RE: Born's rule from almost nothing

; From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 5:11 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Born's rule from almost nothing On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 1/

Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds" ; (was Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > *There is no requirement for an infinite number of degrees of freedom.* > In physics there will never be a theory that requires infinite degrees of freedom, at least not until somebody performs an experiment with infinite accuracy, and I'm

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:29 PM smitra wrote: > On 30-01-2021 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:20 AM smitra wrote: > >> > >> This argument is wrong for two reasons. First, your definition of > >> irreversibility is wrong, it has nothing to do with the practical > >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:19:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the >> interference pattern disappears --

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 30-01-2021 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:20 AM smitra wrote: On 30-01-2021 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: It is difficult to give any sensible meaning to a statement like this. The idea behind the universality of unitary evolution in Everettian QM is that the

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the interference > pattern disappears -- you have certainly created a separate "world" for > each path, but these can

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:20 AM smitra wrote: > On 30-01-2021 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > It is difficult to give any sensible meaning to a statement like this. > > The idea behind the universality of unitary evolution in Everettian > > QM is that the initially pure state always

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 30-01-2021 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 1:41 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2021, at 06:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: This is certainly a problem for Deutsch's interpretation of 'world'. Because there are an infinite number of equivalent sets of basis vectors

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 1:41 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 06:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > This is certainly a problem for Deutsch's interpretation of 'world'. > Because there are an infinite number of equivalent sets of basis vectors > available for every Hilbert space, it

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the interference > pattern disappears -- you have certainly created a separate

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the interference pattern disappears -- you have certainly created a separate "world" for each path, but these can no longer interfere. That is part of the definition of the "worlds" that

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 7:30:42 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 02:07, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:20:15 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 17 Jan 2021, at 03:03, Pierz Newton-John wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 06:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:42 PM Pierz Newton-John > wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2021, at 2:49 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > > > > wrote: > > On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 02:07, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:20:15 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 17 Jan 2021, at 03:03, Pierz Newton-John > > wrote: >> >> >> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> What would be the mechanism

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 25 Jan 2021, at 18:19, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is > >> that it doesn't have to explain what

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 23:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > Also, worlds interfere statistically, by do not interact at all. A term in a > superposition cannot interact with any other terms, but we can make them >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 25 Jan 2021, at 21:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 20 Jan 2021, at 20:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> No, there are NOT exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical number

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 20 Jan 2021, at 06:01, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know what > > world I am in ! It's the

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 19 Jan 2021, at 18:54, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 6:04:34 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:48 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > And if Many Worlds is correct then there is an Alan Grayson for every > horse in that

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 19 Jan 2021, at 15:44, Alina Gutoreva wrote: > > What if we include information processing (e.g., information gathering, > decision-making, communication, noise) into the equation? We all are kind of > split in terms of information. Yes, that is the reasonable move, except that it leads

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:01 AM smitra wrote: > On 28-01-2021 01:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra wrote: > > > >> FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > >> never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found > >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 28-01-2021 01:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra wrote: FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found the correct way to resolve Maxwell's Demon paradox, etc. etc. FAPP

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/27/2021 8:42 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: On 28 Jan 2021, at 2:49 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: I’m not saying decoherence is reversible. I’ve corrected myself (or accepted your correction) on that point. But my

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:42 PM Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2021, at 2:49 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > >> I’m not saying decoherence is reversible. I’ve corrected myself (or >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 2:49 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: >> I’m not saying decoherence is reversible. I’ve corrected myself (or accepted >> your correction) on that point. But my understanding of proposals for >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/27/2021 5:11 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: I’m not saying decoherence is reversible. I’ve corrected myself (or accepted your correction) on that point. But my understanding of proposals for disconfirming MWI involve extending quantum coherence to larger and larger scales. Deutsch has

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:11 PM Pierz Newton-John wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 12:02 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You can utilize technology to maintain quantum coherence over ever larger > domains (as in quantum computers), but that domain can never extend to the > whole universe; not even

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 12:02 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:47 AM Pierz Newton-John > wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:32 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pierz Newton-John >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 9:20:15 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 17 Jan 2021, at 03:03, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with >> each other, that is to

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:47 AM Pierz Newton-John wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:32 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pierz Newton-John > wrote: > >> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:32 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pierz Newton-John > wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:20 AM Pierz Newton-John wrote: > On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra wrote: > >> >> FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could >> never have discovered Special Relativity, General

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 28 Jan 2021, at 11:03 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra > wrote: > > FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found the > correct way

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra wrote: > > FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found the > correct way to resolve Maxwell's Demon paradox, etc. etc. > FAPP is well-defined for all practical

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:46 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 1/27/2021 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:51 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 1/27/2021 2:28

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/27/2021 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:51 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 1/27/2021 2:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 27-01-2021 23:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, worlds interfere statistically, by do not interact at all. A term in a superposition cannot interact with any other terms, but we can make them interfering, like with the two slits. Your

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:51 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 1/27/2021 2:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Also, worlds interfere statistically, by do not interact at all. A term >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/27/2021 2:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: Also, worlds interfere statistically, by do not interact at all. A term in a superposition cannot interact with any other terms, but we can make them

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 3:08 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Also, worlds interfere statistically, by do not interact at all. A term in > a superposition cannot interact with any other terms, but we can make them > interfering, like with the two slits. > Your grasp of the relevant physics is

Re: What top we assume at the start (Re: Born's rule from almost nothing)

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 2:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The term “world” is hard to define. For logician, it usually mean an > element of some non empty set, for a metaphysician, it means the objet of > the ontological commitment. > The trouble, Bruno, is that your world is too small. Bruce

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 17 Jan 2021, at 15:39, Alan Grayson wrote: > > One of the postulates of the MWI is that everything that can happen, must > happen. I just applied it to a horse race. Are you denying that? AG It is hard to imagine how you will prepare the superposition of the 9 races. I have translated

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 17 Jan 2021, at 12:15, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 17 Jan 2021, at 03:03, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson > wrote: > What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with each > other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 16 Jan 2021, at 17:49, Alan Grayson wrote: > > What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with each > other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in the room > that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero grounding in >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 16 Jan 2021, at 10:37, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > "They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476; > > the paper (pdf) is here: > >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 16 Jan 2021, at 10:15, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: > > Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you > have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate > how that leads to internal inconsistency." > > They show that MWI is

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 16:04, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:26:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 13:38, Alan Grayson a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5:14:33 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>

What top we assume at the start (Re: Born's rule from almost nothing)

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 08:36, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:27:43 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? > > That’s Bohr idea. But it means that

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:26:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 13:38, Alan Grayson a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5:14:33 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 12:19, Alan Grayson a >>> écrit :

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 13:38, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5:14:33 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 12:19, Alan Grayson a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 3:56:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5:14:33 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 12:19, Alan Grayson a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 3:56:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 11:54, Alan Grayson a >>> écrit

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 12:19, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 3:56:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 11:54, Alan Grayson a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 3:56:50 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 11:54, Alan Grayson a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 11:54, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> *>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 6:36 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:27:43 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> Why not assume the wf applies

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 6:36 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:27:43 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? >> >> >> That’s Bohr idea. But it means that

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:27:43 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? > > > That’s Bohr idea. But it means that measurement are no more describe by > QM, and this introduces a

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2021, at 06:01, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 16 Jan 2021, at 02:00, smitra wrote: > > Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as some > given physical system) have measured something, should not only depend on the > entanglement between the measured system and those that belong to you. Indeed. Bruno >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 15 Jan 2021, at 23:34, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? That’s Bohr idea. But it means that measurement are no more describe by QM, and this introduces a dualism in the the possible theory of mind that you need to use. The élégance if

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 15 Jan 2021, at 06:01, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com <> > wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> > Subject: [Consciousness-Online] RE: Born's rule from almost nothing > > [Philip Benjamin] > Be it Relativity Theory (actually Relationality) where Social > Sciences ignore the speed of light in vacuo as a CONSTANT (ABSOLUTE) or > Quantum Mechanics where mystics dis

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 14 Jan 2021, at 13:07, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 12 Jan 2021, at 16:48, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:41:07 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 2, 2021

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 12 Jan 2021, at 13:41, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 8:22:53 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2021, at 12:39 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 1:23:07 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 26 Jan 2021, at 12:39 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 1:23:07 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 1:23:07 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> No, there are *NOT*exactly 10 winners! There are an

  1   2   3   >