On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:03:10 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote: >>> >>> Here below a point made by Asher Peres. >>> >>> ---------- >>> >>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern >>> between the cat alive and the cat dead. >>> >>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase *θ* in >>> the state >>> >>> *ψ* = 2-1/2[ |live> + *exp(i**θ**)*|dead>] >>> >>> would be meaningful. >>> >>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an >>> ensemble of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection >>> operator on state ψ. >>> >>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ. >>> >>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead. >>> >>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive. >>> >>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to >>> construct the ψ-measuring machine. >>> >> >> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you >> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG >> >> >> >> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, >> and the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using >> the exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to >> build the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, >> >
*Why do we need such a measuring device to solve the cat paradox? What is it supposed to be measuring? What superposition? AG * > but I do see how I can emulate it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing >> machine. (Which is Turing emulate and so arithmetic emulates a quantum >> universal dovetailer, BTW. But if it is the winner, that has to be justify >> from number self-reference logic (as I have explained, or see my papers). >> >> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot >> in the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself >> directly by a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to >> find yourself “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!). >> >> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM >> without collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong >> somewhere. >> > > *You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the > additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem > oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to > justify it. AG* > *I see nothing in the SWE that implies, requires, or guarantees, that every outcome that's possible, must occur. AG* > > >> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open >> to generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is >> simpler than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism, used by Everett, >> entails a theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are >> provably emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality. >> >> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all >> computations, modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential >> correctness. >> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person, >> and a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks >> to the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended >> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal >> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent >> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable >> notion of world. >> >> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum >> of the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know >> enough of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine, >> and computations, are arithmetical notion, definable entirely in the >> language of first order arithmetic. >> >> Many take granted a primitive or primary physical universe or multiverse, >> but what can be proved is the existence of a multi-dream in arithmetic, >> with laws explaining how the sharable first person plural dreams can >> converge to local appearance of “universe”. >> >> I have no clue, nor even opinion if mechanism is true, but it is a fact >> that the universal machine, in the sense of Turing, have a quite surprising >> theology, in the sense of the Neoplatonists. So we can test the intuitive >> consequences (due to our embedding in infinitely many computations) and the >> formal consequences, like the appearances of a quantum logic. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
