Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: Your claim appears to be that Bell's theorem is not valid in MWI. Bell's theorem is valid. His inequality does not even assume QM, but just locality. I

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > ​> ​ > > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > > ​ ​ > > there's no answer to find there, but the halting

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: In QM, with or without collapse, decoherence and the transition from the pure state to a mixture gives a definite measurement result. In particular branches only. When looking at the whole wave

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I was juste arguing against John Clarks idea that the Bell's inequality > violation introduce physical action at a distance, even with the MWI. ​That's ​not exactly correct, what I actually said was *at least* one

Proof and truth are not the same thing (was: substitution level)

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Anything that can be done a Turing Machine can do, if it can't be done >> then a Turing Machine can't do it, and neither can anything else.​ > > ​> ​ > If "can be done" means "can compute or emulate", I am OK. That

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 04 Jun 2017, at 08:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of comparing qualia, private experience. I cannot

Re: substitution level

On 04 Jun 2017, at 03:20, John Clark wrote: Anything that can be done a Turing Machine can do, if it can't be done then a Turing Machine can't do it, and neither can anything else.​ If "can be done" means "can compute or emulate", I am OK. That is basically Church's Thesis. If by "can

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > There is nothing that a quantum > ​ ​ > computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, ​There are problems a ​ classical computer ​ can't solve in polynomial time that a quantum computer can.​ ​> ​ >

Re: substitution level

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > ​> ​ > That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so > ​ ​ > there's no answer to find there, but the halting problem always has an > ​ ​ > answer - a program either halts, or it does not. >

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02 Jun 2017, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: (answered in my previous post). In quantum mechanics, this change is brought about by the unitary processes of decoherence, As Everett explains well, and suggest already this makes any influence at a distance only apparent, but never real.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2017, at

Re: Answers to David 4

On 4 June 2017 at 11:47, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 02 Jun 2017, at 00:29, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 June 2017 at 18:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 01 Jun 2017, at 16:42, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1 Jun 2017 15:20, "Bruno Marchal"

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4 Jun 2017 7:53 a.m., "Telmo Menezes" wrote: > Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and > > conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But > ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of > comparing

Re: Answers to David 4

On 02 Jun 2017, at 00:29, David Nyman wrote: On 1 June 2017 at 18:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 16:42, David Nyman wrote: On 1 Jun 2017 15:20, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 15:59, David Nyman wrote: On 1 Jun 2017

Re: substitution level

On 01 Jun 2017, at 19:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: Creating a new thread to avoid causing decoherence on the other one :) What if the substitution level turns out to be

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:20 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> Regarding the quantum computer, I understand that it is still a >> classical computer > > > If a Human being like you, or any computer in existence

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

> Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and > > conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But > ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of > comparing qualia, private experience. I cannot even verify > experimentally that you are