On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:

there is no random decay or anything else


There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.

only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.


And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the
Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.



Hi Bruno,

You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences
against it,

Could you elaborate?

I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave "collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense.

But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again. A measurement is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if it were not erased could have become a measurement.

You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible. For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as we cannot track the leaking of information, and can no more practically erase it. Quantum erasure algorithm would not work if measurement were irreversible, and what such local measurement, where we can still erase the information and get back to coherence shows that the collapse is not well defined. Of course Einstein already shows that the collapse cannot be covariant, and Bohr acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but then why to introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).






Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative "physical reality" of the superposition states.

The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying 'don't listen to the theory when she talk about you or your body. She get absolutelly crazy, like if we could be ourself in superposiion states Ha ha ha!".

Without the Born axiom there'd be no way to related QM to actual observations. According to the Schrodinger equation nothing every really happens.


Nothing or everything happens, with the SWE or with arithmetic. Then it is a matter of listening and studying the memory content of the subsystem inside. They do believe things happen, and they are right. And the Born axioms can be extracted from SWE + COMP (+ FPI). Only problem: the logic asks to derive the SWE too, and this works well up to now.

Bruno






Brent





and there are no experimental evidence of any randomness other
than some FPI, on the branch of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp,
on arithmetic.
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo- religion. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem
on purpose.

This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least some form of many-worlds. "True randomness" strikes me as an euphemism
for magic.

I suspect you mean "true physical randomness", or a 3p randomness, but this still exist mathematically, and experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are observed, of course it is only first person indeterminacy on the wave.

Betting on "true randomness" for an observed reality is like asserting "don't ask for more explanation".

But from inside we might be confronted with some true randomness, like with the quantum beams.

Bruno






Telmo.

Bruno







John K Clark


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to