Yeah "The Quiet Earth" is great.....and was made in New Zealand, to boot!


On 12 February 2014 13:17, chris peck <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
>
>
> >> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
> invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did
> not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
> "Chris".
>
> I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me, firstly
> because he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it will save me
> the embarrassment if I have him wrong. I've elaborated at length on my own
> criticisms of step 3 and stand by them.
>
> I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way
> through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that
> Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or
> difficult to follow. That the person who actually devised the steps
> themselves remains confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief.
> There;s something very odd about that.
>
> There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to MWI.
> Like some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when (if?) he
> defends the notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI context. I can see
> though that in Comp people are duplicated within worlds whereas in MWI they
> are duplicated between worlds, and there possibly are some repercussions
> vis a vis the proper use of pro-nouns because of that. Im not sure it
> matters much, because Clark could be right about Comp and just inconsistent
> about MWI. So this complaint, loudly pursued by Quentin, has always seemed
> impotent to me and not worth bothering about.
>
> Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because, mentioning
> no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm wavey about
> people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least, I'll limit
> myself to recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet
> Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw.
>
> All the best
> Chris.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300
> Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>
>
> Correctly, I assume.
>
>
>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>
>
> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have
> a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably
> have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you
> can do it very simply anyway?
>
>
> And how can it be done very simply?
>
> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for
> the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).
>
>
> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
>
>
> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
> non-locality).
>
> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume
> it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).
>
>
> Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist
>
>
> That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation
> is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing 
> this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman
> absorber 
> theory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory>onwards).
>
> It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's
> Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.
>
>
> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to