On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:48:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2017, at 00:34, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Dec 2017, at 23:54, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:24:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14 Dec 2017, at 03:01, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 1:41:37 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/13/2017 5:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:44:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/13/2017 2:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:15:36 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/13/2017 2:45 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * BUT for a nucleus of a radioactive element, the nucleus is never >>>>>>> Decayed and Undecayed SIMULTANEOUSLY.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it is. It's in a coherent superposition of those states until >>>>>>> it interacts with the environment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * That's the conventional QM wisdom and the cause of the paradox of a >>>>>> cat Alive and Dead simultaneously. As I explained, the fallacy is rooted >>>>>> in >>>>>> an unjustified generalization of the double slit experiment where the >>>>>> probability waves do, in fact, exist simultaneously. What waves do you >>>>>> claim are interacting for the radioactive nucleus to produce coherence? >>>>>> Tell me about them. I am from Missouri. AG* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to think that coherence requires two different waves. This >>>>>> is the wrong way to look at it. In Young's slits experiment there is >>>>>> only >>>>>> one wave, which goes through both slits and interferes with itself. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *That's exactly how I see it! Interference requires two waves which >>>>> interact with each other. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *NO. This is false! * *There are not two waves.* You can write it >>>>> as two parts, just as you can write a description of an ocean wave as the >>>>> part on your left and the part on your right. But so long as they are >>>>> coherent, maintaining a fixed phase relation, they are one wave. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *You're splitting hairs, engaging in sophism. For the single wave going >>>> through both slits, Feynman calculates the norm squared of | A + B |, >>>> where >>>> A and B denote the waveS going through left and right slits respectively. >>>> Both are obviously identical, with the result of coherent interference. >>>> From this analysis we get the interpretation that the the system is >>>> simultaneously in all states of a superposition. AGNoteworthy is that fact >>>> that if you reference "coherence" on Wiki, the description always invokes >>>> multiple waves of the same frequency. If you want to assert coherence >>>> without multiple waves, and NOT using the double slit result, you have >>>> some >>>> heavy lifting to do. AG* >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *This is exactly what we see in Young's slits experiments. AG * >>>>> >>>>>> And unstable nucleus has a probability amplitude that includes a >>>>>> "decayed" part and a "not decayed" part. It's a tunneling problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I don't doubt the existence of amplitudes. What I do doubt. and in >>>>> fact deny, is interference between two waves that don't exist >>>>> simultaneously. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You keep referring to two waves. * There are not two waves. *There's >>>>> only one wave which interferes with itself. It is typically written as >>>>> |not-decayed> + |decayed>, but that's just a choice of basis. It could >>>>> as >>>>> well be written |unstable nucleus>. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *OK, unstable nucleus. Makes no difference to what I am arguing; >>>> namely, that coherence requires more than one wave, simultaneously, which >>>> is what double slit SHOWS, even though the experiment obviously starts out >>>> with one wave. AG* >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *If there's no interference, then the cat cannot be Alive and Dead >>>>> simultaneously. Tunneling can exist, but still, no simultaneous >>>>> interacting, interfering waves. Is there any advantage to believing in >>>>> two >>>>> waves which don't exist simultaneous, can interfere with each other? AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are confused. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're the one with a cat which Alive and Dead simultaneously for the >>>> very short time until decoherence occurs. So it is arguable who is really >>>> confused. AG >>>> >>>> I agree with Brent. It is elementary quantum mechanics. >>>> >>>> *I seriously doubt you have a clue what we're discussing. If you take >>>> the time to read any definition of 'coherence', you will see it involves >>>> two or more interfering waves.* >>>> >>> You can use two, or one wave. All you need is to gives them a similar >>> phase, and it is easy to use only one wave, like the one going through two >>> slit when sending, even one, photon. >>> >>> >> You have an elaborate theory of the universe based on arithmetic but have >> difficulty counting to two. A single wave cannot exhibit interference. You >> need TWO waves! In double slit experiment, the slits split the original >> wave into TWO waves which interfere with each other, yielding the >> interference pattern. Got it? So the question is, how does one get >> interference in an experiment with a binary result? You can call it what >> you want, or calculate mindlessly, but the question persists; how is >> interference manifested in superpositions with binary results? AG >> > > >> >> * Don't take my word. Check for yourself. AG* >> >> I did. >> > > Not carefully. AG > >> *Moreover, I don't doubt that nuclear decay is a tunneling problem, with >> probability amplitudes that agree with experiments and allow nuclear >> weapons to function as advertised -- as you write, "elementary quantum >> mechanics". * >> >> >> That is why I prefer to recast the "schroedinger cat" with an >> amplifucation of the spin up+down state, instead of nuclear decay. That is >> what Bohm did. The up+down state is invariant with time, and made the >> thought experiment easir. No need to invoke quantum tunneling. The point is >> that the superposition never disappear if there is no collapse, and that >> the observer get themselves into a superposition. They cannot notice it by >> "Elementary Mechanist Theory of Mind". >> >> *But in order for the decay process, when tied to a cat, yields a cat >> which is simultaneously Alive and Dead seems to depend on giving the wf >> ontological status. I suppose I have to change my previously stated view, >> and assert that the wf has only epistemological content. * >> >> >> That makes things worst. Toy will make physical outcomes directly >> dependent of the consciousness/knowledge of the observer. >> > > Why do you and Clark persist in this error? Collapse, if it occurs, does > NOT depend on human consciousness. > > > OK but what you said made it depending of consciousness. There is no > collapse possible with the SWE, so what is the collapse? All theories > introducing a collapse in between the consciousness of the observer and the > observed objects seem highly speculative to me. > > > > > > > All one needs is a detector recording the result of a measurement. I am > beginning to think collapse might be a red herring, an artifact of history > insofar as SWE (non relativistic) is easier to solve than Dirac's equation > (relativistic); and/or that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics failed to become > popular. With no waves in Heisenberg's picture, maybe the collapse problem > is really non existent. AG > > > Whatever the picture you take, without collapse, that is with keeping all > terms in the wave, or equivalently all non numbers in the matrices, that is > without eliminating "parallel histories", there is no problem, except for > what remains to be solved for the mind-body problem (why hermitian > matrices, unitary evolution, why tensor products, etc. But this can be > explained by number self-reference and theoretical computer science. > > > > > > *This also disposes of your infinity of cats; a conjecture, btw, that you >> never "knew", but rather believed, and is now based on elaborate, >> contrived, arithmetic mumbo-jumbo. AG* >> >> Not arithmetical mumbo-jumbo, but arithmetical facts, knows since 1931. >> You are the one speculating on some primary (Aristotelian) reality. >> > But then it can be shown NOT working when we assume our locale finiteness >> and computability at some level of self-description. You can add infinities >> in the mind to save primative matter, but that is like assuming God has a >> Mother to explain the existence of God. >> > > I do NOT assume "primitive matter", or, shall we say, "substance". What I > assume is some geometry of space which varies in time and location, that > precludes motion in some directions, giving rise to the appearance of > solidity. > > > You assume some physical space and physical time. What is it? and how they > select the computations in arithmetic? You will need special infinities to > link the mind to some volume in your space-time. See my papers or the > archive to see why. > > > > > I don't see this as Aristotelian or Platonic. Nor do I see what Godel has > to do with all this. All I know about Godel, admittedly not much, is that > he proved that some mathematical propositions are undecidable in > mathematics, like the fact that there is no infinity between the integers > and the continuum. Can you explain in simple terms why Godel is important > in the context of physical theories? AG > > > > Gödel show that no > theories/machines/number/program/finite-things/digital-things, when having > enough introspection to admit enough induction axiom, can prove that if > they are consistent (which is equivalent with the idea that some > reality/model exists for their beliefs) then they cannot effectively > justify this rationally. > > Gödel's second incompleteness is the first theorem in exact machine > theology, if you want. The key point (missed by Penrose and mpany) is that > the machine can prove its own Gödel's theorem, and indeed can discover, > like Solovay, that the whole true and and the whole provable propositional > theologies are decidable, and captured respectively by G (for the provable > part), and G* for the entire true part. > > G is a modal logic whose main axiom is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp (a formula due to > Löb, which explains why I call those machines Löbian). You will find more > explanations in my papers(*). You might study some books in Logic and/or > theoretical computer science. > > Bruno > > > (*) > Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. > Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40 > > Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in > Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381. > > B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th > International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, > SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > (sane04) >
I've only just skimmed your last paper above. I cannot relate to it. I am not in a position to say you're on the right or wrong track in solving the mind-body problem. I was a software engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, with degrees in mathematics and physics, but I cannot relate to, or understand, your conjectures about arithmetic and computers. If there is some entity or whatever doing the calculations to create the world illusion (in your view), where is it located, and how did it come into existence? Same old God-problem? I do assume the existence of space and time. It seems more plausible, minimally as a working hypothesis, than in denying their existence. AG > > Then the decoherence is only in the mind of those looking at the cat, as >> explained entirely by the formalism itself (although there is a technical >> debate on the question of the derivation of the Born Rule, but for me that >> problem has been solved a very long time ago by Paulette >> Février-Destouches, and simple (non rigorous) proof exists in Preskill's >> course on quantum computation, or in Selestnick's book "Quanta, Logic and >> Space-Time"), and personally, I think this is solved completely by Gleason >> theorem. >> > > > *IIRC, Brent mentioned Gleason's theorem to support the view that > everything that can happen, does NOT necessarily happen. AG * > > > He is right. Only consistent things can happen, and then they happen with > quite different relative probabilities, which are given by the Born Rule, > and can be justified from Gleason theorem. The same appears in arithmetic, > and, furthermore, we get the derivation of the quantum logic. It is still > an open problem if we can apply Gleason theorem to it, and get the Born > rule, and the wave, directly from machine self-reference in arithmetic, as > it should (in case you have studied the Universal Dovetailer Argument). > > Bruno > > Then, I already knew, before knewing QM, that infinitely many cats live in > arithmetic, and that the statistics of the observable, in arithmetic from > inside, have to "interfere" to make Digital Mechanism making sense in > cognitive science, so MW-appearances is not bizarre at all: it has to be > like that. Eventually, the "negative amplitude of probability" comes from > the self-referential constraints (the logic of []p & <>p on p sigma_1, for > those who have studied a little bit). > > Bruno > > > > > > >> Brent >> > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
