On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:46 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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.

## Advertising

But this implies that a human observer is needed for something to be a measurement. The fact that the outcome of the measurement is physically available in the universe is not enough. Would you agree that, knowing the outcome of the quantum eraser experiment, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that observation by a conscious entity is necessary to define a quantum state? The Copenhagen interpretation seems to require two magic steps (consciousness causing wave collapse and "pure randomness"). It seems to be a more extraordinary claim than the MWI. Also, CI + the quantum eraser experiment implies that stuff doesn't exist when no one is looking. Am I wrong (honestly asking)? Telmo. > >> >> 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. > > 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. > > -- 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.