This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go
back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed
fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we
can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on?
On 11 April
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go
back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed
fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we
can move
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could
go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an
observed fact, and
On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:34:10 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could
go back to my original
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 5:47:43 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:56, LizR wrote:
As I understand it, the QM interpretation movement stalled for
about 30 years before the MWI came along.
My view on this has changed. I tend to think that the Newton/Huygens
debate, which was a debate about the nature of light (particle, for
Newton;
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains
not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very
good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net).
Only if you
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote:
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I
follow them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:20, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and
there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].
I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are
On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found
On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary
proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke,
Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by
Richard Hugues
Hi Richard,
On 01 Apr 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears
to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized
with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each
universe reoccurs is given by
On 02 Apr 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote:
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and
now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated...
I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability
measure on a
On 02 Apr 2014, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz
apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R
is symmetrical?
Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow
them, and agree...
On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that
the Kripke frame (W,R)
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are
some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)].
I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not
transitive means that
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which
explains how we come to measure discrete values.
Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz?
,
Say, if we imagine a process of stripping
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains how we come to measure
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:40:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would
say
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction
collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable
statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly,
and we
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly
reasonable statement, because we can't observe
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that
wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically
observed fact actually not be.
But would even that
On 01 Apr 2014, at 03:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would
consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which
is used to
Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears to me
to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized with equal
probability at first, but the frequency at which each universe reoccurs is
given by the FPI probabilities that are measured in controlled quantum
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my
brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated...
--
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
On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote:
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A
for-dummies version would be appreciated...
I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert
space is given by the normalized inner
Eek! Am I a mystical many-worlder (on days that don't have a T in them) ?
Thank you that was very interesting, although I still don't know what to
make of quantum theory (that's good, right?)
By the way I've seen Kirk on a rock before somewhere, maybe it was in a
parallel universe...
On 2
Apparently my conception of Gleason's Theorem is incorrect. However, I was
struck by something the author of the answer, Mitchell Porter, said that is
exactly what I thought the Gleason Theorem was about:
In my opinion, the sensible interpretation of a nonuniform measure in a
multiverse theory
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke
frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical?
Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A
iff R is a transitive?
Bruno
On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption
which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar
Ghibbsa,
I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this,
but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too.
Best,
Bruno
On 31 Mar 2014, at 05:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48,
Probably my fault because I was in a hurry didn't reply under what I was
answering, as I try to do normally.
On 31 March 2014 21:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I
confused the post. Sorry to Liz too.
Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are all
first-person? I know of no 3p experiments.
Richard
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:22 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably my fault because I was in a hurry didn't reply under what I was
answering, as I try to do
On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which
explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:44, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote:
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an
assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31
Richard,
On 31 Mar 2014, at 11:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are
all first-person?
Yes, collapse is restored in the minds of each observer, but it is, as
you say, a first person perspective, sharable as duplication is
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact
actually
not be.
But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things
taken
seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically
observed fact actually not be.
But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of
things taken seriously, had there not been
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact
actually
not be.
But would even that alone have been remotely near the
So for meaningful dsicussion it looks like we need either a good
explanation of the Born rule within the MWI (which I imagined had been
provided by decoherence, but apparently this ain't necessarily so?) or a
disproof of the MWI.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed
fact actually not
On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider
a big
price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically
test
On 1 April 2014 12:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed
On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence
against many
worlds?
No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are
infinitely many other readings.
Is that just a
On 1 April 2014 13:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is
evidence against many worlds?
No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there
are
On 1 April 2014 14:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would
consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which
explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 Mar 2014, at 17:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems
more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one
universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already
mentioned). Anyway
On 27 Mar 2014, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely
many times
then there can be only one multiverse,
I think I agree, Richard, but you should perhaps added precisions:
like saying everything *consistent* (in some
2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple
or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me
that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for
reasons I already mentioned). Anyway let's assume it does, at least for the sake of
On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think
Brent,
If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many
times
then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology
theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential
he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data.
On 28 March 2014 07:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent,
If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many
times
then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology
theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the
On 28 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural
selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The
example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic -
Yes it does. It might be interesting if
On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent,
If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many
times
then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology
theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology.
It does? How?
Different potentials. Infinite multiverse has a flat potential.
Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology has a parabolic potential in each
separate universe.
Such a potential fits the BICEP2 data best
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I
have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI
except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few
bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't
appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I
have to admit it didn't appear to say anything
On 3/26/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I
skipped a
few bits that seemed incoherent to my
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple
or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout
my life) indicates
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or
bust vs
maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology.
Well OK, but what I've
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:48:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were
A possible one world solution (that I believe explains the Born rule) is
Huw Price's time symmetry. But he got evasive when I asked him about the
two slit experiment, imho (and I wasn't convinced by his response on
gravitational collapse either...)
On 26 March 2014 04:01, Bruno Marchal
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it
at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it
turned out he meant.
On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I
was one of
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing.
I always find presentations disappointing in terms of information content,
at least when compared to papers and articles, but I was more than happy to
see Max in the flesh
On 3/24/2014 12:17 AM, LizR wrote:
Do you mean which population do I want to join in order to have the greatest chance of
leaving descendants?
I think that's the underlying assumption - but I didn't want to bias answers by putting it
that way.
Brent
--
You received this message because you
Without a specific reason for wanting to be in a population the question is
meaningless in my opinion, one could have all sorts of reasons in theory,
so I'll assume that the point is to maximise your descendants. So I suppose
the question boils down to what is the representation of each population
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly
apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact
other interpretations had similar
He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we
were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about
what he meant by this.
On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb
to comment that it was a little nutty. But really,
in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start.
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:05:53 +1300
Subject: Re: Max and FPI
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
He's talking about the fact that you get about 50
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw
Brent
Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI
argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it
generalises to unequal probabilities
Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw
Brent
--
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
89 matches
Mail list logo
