Brent and Bruno: you both have statements in this endless discussion about processing ideas of quantum computers. I would be happy to read about ONE that works, not a s a potentiality, but as a real tool, the function of which is understood and APPLIED. (Here, on Earth). John Mikes
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 3/12/2012 7:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > On 3/12/2012 10:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 3/11/2012 11:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > An Evil Wizard could pop into my vicinity and banish me to the Nether > plane! A "magical act", if real and just part of a story, is an event that > violates some conservation law. I don't see what else would constitute > magic... My point is that Harry Potterisms would introduce cul-de-sacs that > would totally screw up the statistics and measures, so they have to be > banished. > > > Because otherwise things would be screwed up? > > Chain-wise consistency and concurrency rules would prevent these > pathologies, but to get them we have to consider multiple and disjoint > observers and not just "shared" 1p as such implicitly assume an absolute > frame of reference. Basically we need both conservation laws and general > covariance. Do we obtain that naturally from COMP? That's an open question. > > > You seem to be begging the question: We need regularity, otherwise things > wouldn't be regular. > > > No, you are dodging the real question: How is the measure defined? > > > The obvious way is that all non-self-contradictory events are equally > likely. But that's hypothesized, not defined. I'm not sure why you are > asking how it's defined. The usual definition is an assignment of a number > in [0,1] to every member of a Borel set such that they satisfies > Kolmogorov's axioms. > > > If it is imposed by fiat, say so and defend the claim. Why is it so hard > to get you to consider multiple observers and consider the question as to > how exactly do they interact? Al of the discussion that I have seen so far > considers a single observer and abstractions about other people. The most I > am getting is the word "plurality". Is this difficult? Really? > > > It's difficult because people are trying to explain 'other people' and > taking only their own consciousness as given. If you're going to assume > other people, why not assume physics too? > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.