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

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought > about > > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space > and

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

On 28 May 2017 4:46 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote: On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two > observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two > humans

Re: Answers to David 4

On 27 May 2017, at 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/05/2017 6:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 May 2017, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 26/05/2017 9:11 am, David Nyman wrote: On 25 May 2017 23:18, "Brent Meeker" wrote: I have told you my theory of virtuous

Re: Peepee

On 28 May 2017 2:09 a.m., "John Clark" wrote: On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote: ​> >> ​>​ >> ​ >> Data feels something? >> > > ​ > ​> ​ > Yes.​ > > > >> ​ >> ​> >> ​>>​ >> ​ >> Data feels something in a way?​ >> > > ​ > ​> ​ > Yes.​ > > > Ah,

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

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 12:24:32 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: >> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought >> about >> >

Re: Answer to David 3

On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote: On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote: where that elusive internal space (which we seek in vain in extrinsically-completed models such as physics tout court) Here we

Re: Answer to David 3

On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote: > > On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> where that elusive internal space

Re: Fwd: Answers to David 4

On 28 May 2017 5:52 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 5/27/2017 3:20 PM, David Nyman wrote: I think what is meant by the reversal is clear enough. The forward > hypothesis, mechanism, is that the realization of some information > processing in the brain, or other physical

Re: Answers to David 4

On 27 May 2017, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/05/2017 11:46 am, David Nyman wrote: On 27 May 2017 at 01:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think it is the interpretation of the data that is theory- dependent. ​Not at all. Data don't just sit there staring you

Re: Answers to David 4

On 28 May 2017, at 00:28, David Nyman wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: David Nyman Date: 27 May 2017 at 22:43 Subject: Re: Answers to David 4 To: meekerdb On 27 May 2017 9:19 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:

Re: Answer to David 3

On 28 May 2017, at 16:53, David Nyman wrote: On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote: On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote: where that

Re: Peepee

On 27 May 2017, at 17:02, John Clark wrote: Due to the impenetrable tangle of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes ​of quotes ​that is epidemic on​ ​this list there is no way to tell who but​ ​somebody wrote: ​"​The point is to recognise that at a certain stage it is no longer

Re: Peepee

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​ >> ​> ​ >> And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words >> don't you understand.​ >> > > ​It is tedious to ask you again to reconsider your use of words ​about > whose application we clearly

Supervenience

I recently posted a comment in reply to Russell on the topic of supervenience, but it may have got lost in the recent posting confusion. Anyway, I append it again below, slightly amended for comprehension in isolation. The comments bear on physical supervenience and on whether consciousness could

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

On 28 May 2017, at 05:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two humans walking past each other

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

On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about > how, according to special relativity, you can

Re: Peepee

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​>> ​ > ​I ask again, which word didn't you understand?​ > > > > ​> ​ > I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording conceals. > ​And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or

Re: Peepee

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > you introduce an ambiguity by eliminating the "1p" precision. [...] You > eliminate the FPI by eliminating the subject. ​But you've completely forgotten ​IHA. ​ John K Clark​ -- You received this message

Re: Answer to David 3

On 28 May 2017 at 18:02, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 May 2017, at 16:53, David Nyman wrote: > > > On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal

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

On 28-05-2017 04:24, Jason Resch wrote: On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about how, according to special relativity, you can

Re: Peepee

On 28 May 2017 at 18:10, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >> ​I ask again, which word didn't you understand?​ >> >> >> >> ​> ​ >> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording >>

Re: Answers to David 4

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:54:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > That is a personal question of taste. Why to try to unify GR and QM? > If they works well in their domain, we could just keep both. But There are physical domains where both theories are required. For example the nature of the

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

On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote: WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now whether, in MWI, macroscopic histories can merge is surely an interesting puzzle. But /without /MWI, there cannot be any

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

WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now whether, in MWI, macroscopic histories can merge is surely an interesting puzzle. But *without *MWI, there cannot be any ambiguity about the colour of T-Rexes. In

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

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote: > > > > >We are merely ignorant of its state. I would argue the same > >applies to the colour of T. Rex. The past is not in a > >superposition of possible values, but we are ignorant of

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

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition, > of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate > decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as Russell > says. I don't think such a

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

On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition, of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as

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

Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of dead and alive before we open the box? On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:26:49 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>