> On 29 Jul 2018, at 11:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute >>>>>> > simplest and with the least assumptions. It comes from pure >>>>>> > mathematical truth concerning integers. You don't need set theory, or >>>>>> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single >>>>>> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in >>>>>> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less. >>>>>> >>>>>> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible >>>>>> algorithms. Another instance of proving too much. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world >>>>>> and only this world that would be something. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to >>>>>> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each >>>>>> individual being within that everything should also be able to see >>>>>> everything. >>>>> >>>>> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really >>>>> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth") you >>>>> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able >>>>> to see all those novels play out. >>>>> >>>>> If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you >>>>> shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then >>>>> you can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism >>>>> of the theory. >>>> >>>> However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it. >>>> >>>> You could, but Robinson arithmetic is fairly coherent, in my opinion. >>> >>> Indeed. Robinso Arithmetic, or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinator theory proves >>> the existence of a quantum universal dovetailer. Of course that does not >>> solve the mind-body problem, we have still to extract it from >>> self-reference to distinguish qualia and quanta. >> >> What does that have to do with "everything exists”, > > > Brent, I did not find this post. I answer here. “everything exists” has never > been taken literally, in this everything-list. At the worst, we intent > “every-consistent-things”. It has been clear that with computationalism, the > everything is “all computations”, which is a constructive notion (cf the > universal dovetailer, or the sigma_1 truth, …). > > > >> which is not only incoherent, but it is empirically false? There is this >> myth that "everything exists" or "everything happens" is a consequence of >> quantum mechanics and it therefore proved by physics. But quantum mechanics >> predicts probability(x)=0 for many values of x, c.f. arXiv:0702121 > > > Like the universal dovetailer, or its logical specification: which makes > infinitely many proposition wrong. I am sure you know that no-one in this > claim, neither from computationalism, nor from QM-without-collapse, that > everything happen. That myth is a bit straw-man. Now, if you believe in 2+2=4 > & Co., the many-computations is already in a tiny segment of the arithmetical > (standard) model/truth, and indeed accessed by a very weak theory like > Robinson Arithmetic. That is obviously consistent. > > > >> >> Brent >> >> I would rather call "everything happens" an illusion rather than a myth, and >> IMO it originates from the interpretation of the superposition that all >> components states, > > Of course, that is not my case. I discover the “many computations” in the > mechanist theory of mind, or just in arithmetic. I actually predicted that we > must (when assuming Mechanism) see the many-history aspect of the physical > reality by looking below our substitution level. At that time, and later, I > will believe in the collapse axiom, and I took QM as a threat to Mechanism, > until I read Everett (and DeWitt’s short paper in Physics Today). that, I > consider QM as confirming Mechanism, and quite so after Aspect experiment. > Y > Grayson, I don’t see how you can accept quantum mechanics, and not the > physical reality of the superpositions. > > It's really your problem, not mine. In QM we write a superposition for the wf > of a system and use it to calculate the probability of measuring various > eigenstates.
Cool. I agree more that you think on this. But yes, in the third person local condition, that is already a reason to believe only in Numbers, as physicist makes only measurement and get numbers, and then infer numerical invariant which they use to predict only number. OK. But that approach is unfortunately not available in psychology and theology, where we have person in needs of relatively stable bodies, and all the evidences are that there are relations between the number measure by the physicist and the numbers in the mind of the numbers. But here, for physics, you are only deciding for an instrumentalist conception of science, which, in my opinion is almost at the the antipode of the fundamental science, where we try to figure out the whole picture, consciousness included. > All QM gives is probabilities of measurements and you know how to do the > calculation. With me so far? Yes. > Now someone comes along, you and your deluded comrades, (Come on) > and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates > simultaneously before measurement. Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM is false). O(u + d) = Ou + Od, and as long as O does not look at the particle, that is: is isolated well enough of the particle, he can obtain interference effects, like (u + d) will pass his (u+d)/(u-d) apparatus, which might be just the same, but after some rotation. If, willingly or not, he interact with the particle, and if he lost all details of that information, at least locally, he will lost all ability to see interference effects. But where is the problem? It is just numbers dreaming measuring numbers, and betting on invariant patterns. If QM is correct, we don’t say that the parallel branches are real or something, we say that QM describes the observer as measuring numbers like if all that where real, in all branches. Our own branch is not more real or less real than another. What I do not understand is that you do talk like if one branche was more real than another, and yet claim that you do not assume the collapse. But the collapse has been invented to avoid the many-observers/worlds/histories/computations. Many-world is just the idea that the physicists obey QM, and then it is a theorem that O(a+b) = Oa + Ob = Os-ee-a a + O-see-be b. That follows from the linearity of the tensor product and the linearity of the wave evolution. The superposition itself is also due to linearity. > But where did you use this additional claim in your calculation or in writing > the superposition? By assuming that the observer has a body, and that this body and its environment are described by quantum mechanics. In toy case that is obvious as I show above. Adding Avogadro type of number of particles and interaction does not change anything, except explaining why it is hard to keep a superposition state accessible for us in hot environment. A superposition never disappeared, it just look that way for things interacting with it, but that is just the entanglement with the environment, also called decoherence. > Anyone can write anything, Not at all. In our case we can only write the SWE and its solution. > and the fact that you write the system's wf as a sum of eigenstates proves > nothing about its meaning. Of course. But I just apply QM to the observer, and somehow interview the average of them, and this recover the belief in the collapse (I see only one universe) in a situation without collapse, and so without FTL, without physical indeterminacy, and both realist and consistent with special relativity. > You never used this additional claim in your calculation, We use always the superposition, but we rarely use macro-superposition, although that could play a role in cosmology and it plays the key role in computationalism, but again, that is for the search of knowledge and applications can only be indirect from here. Then, in the EPR situation, to explain that there is no FTL physical influence at a distance, we do need to apply QM to observers. > or by virtue of writing the sum, since writing it down proves nothing about > its meaning. It is just QM applied to the couples “observer + things observed”. Sometimes there is Wigner’s friend passing by. > IN It's completely superfluous. Well, you don’t really need to know that the Higgs boson can be “seen” to prepare a cup of coffee. It is not superfluous to apply QM correctly, and O(a+b) gives Os-ee-a a + O-see-be b. If you have a theory explaining why only one of O see something, be my guest. > Plus, very importantly, since bases are NOT unique in Hilbert space, the > superposed state you attribute so much to, could have written in other bases, Absolutely, but that does not change anything. What we see in the position base remains the same, whichever base you choose for the universal wave. Why brain use the position base is a different question, a bit like why life use carbon so much. > thus supporting the argument that the component states of the original > superposition are not special, Bases get special relatively to bases, and this indepentendly on any original base. We have the same with mechanism. The choice of the “first” universal system is not important, as life and histories are only relation between universal machine. The question "why this base?" is a bit like the questions "why Trump? Why Putin? Why Earth? “Why me?”, etc. > and thus the claim is specious that the system was in fact in all those > particular states simultaneously. AG How do you interpret the quantum state Os-ee-a u + O-see-be d. I am not O. It is only my friend, and I have isolated well very well, so I can still measure the interference effects, for example he will pass with probability one my Os-ee-a u/Os-ee-a d measuring device. Bruno > > I am aware of many attempts to select branches in the Wave, but all either > change QM and propose different theories (usually not confirmed, sometimes > non sensical, …) or admit FTL, which makes not much sense to me. > > > >> which generally have different probabilities, physically exist, or co-exist. >> This is what I have been arguing here for some time now, and feeling like a >> voice crying in the wilderness. > > I try to make sense of what you say, but I have not yet succeed. Even the > macroscopic superposition are direct consequences of the two linearities of > QM (evolution and tensor product). The theory explain well why we can’t “see” > the superposition once they involve the observers. > > > >> Moreover, it is from this illusion that I trace the origin of the MWI. It is >> a subtle connecting of dots which has led otherwise sharp minds, to go >> astray. And your opinion is what? AG > > I think Brent said he is agnostic, but I let him make the precisions. > > Bruno > > > >> >>> >>> If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and >>> Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike >>> Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh >>> in my head because I have just finished a thorough course on this. >>> Combinators are also interesting to explain what is a computation and for >>> differentiating different sorts of computation, including already sort of >>> “physical computation”. Yet it would be treachery to use this directly. To >>> distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract >>> them from Löb’s formula, and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a >>> summary here. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>>> <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 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 >>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <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 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 >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 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.
