Ah, thanks professor.

Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 

Yes, for the space scientists. However, for me, its what we can mine on Mars, 
using robots and ship to earth. We probably don't need to mine Mars, but the 
easier asteroid belt not far from Mars. 
Money-Materialism-to-Make-walking-robots-and-electric-cars-and-quantum-computers!
An equation may at some point a new vista in the human endeavor, but as you 
indicated, this is not clear..


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 4, 2018 7:29 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 3 Aug 2018, at 23:36, spudboy100 via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
equation help matters?





The goal is just to search the truth. Now, does searching the truth helps? That 
is not entirely obvious, and we all know that some lies can be more confortable 
for many people.


To be sure, we are dwelling more within a Universal Diophantine equation than 
in a Universal Turing relation, or in a universal combinators, as they do all 
the same thing. The point is that is testable, and I predicted the 
“many-worlds” from this, so an application is to derive physics from that 
universal thing, whenever shape it has (diophantine, combinators, etc.). 










 Help, our specie in either engineering (building new stuff) or mentally? 



The big bomb was the discovery of the universal machine/combinators/equation.


That just the Diophantine equation(s) provide(s) a universal machine or 
machinery blow the mind, and is very conuterintuive. How could a polynomial 
(whose exponent are finite integer) emulates (simulates exactly) the function 
sending the natural number x to x^x. Many mathematicians, including famous one, 
thought that this was just impossible. Now we know it is possible, and the 
proof has been constructive, so we can build a polynomial which indeed simulate 
a super-exponential function. This also solved one of the problem asked by 
Hilbert in his list of the most fundamental and important problem to solve: is 
there an algorithm telling us if a diophantine equation admit a solution of 
not. The existence of a universal polynomial solves that problem negatively. If 
such an algorithm existed, we could solve the halting Turing machine problem, 
given that for each Turing machine, there is a diophantine polynomial equation 
which simulate it exactly.








Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people gifted with 
tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure? 





Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 


Different mathematicians have different motivation. Some do it for the sheer 
beauty. Others because they are driven by the mystery. Still others search only 
Glory, etc.
Hardy, the number- theorist wrote an apology, because he did number theory only 
for beauty, and thought that none of his work could have any application. But 
the rise of computers and the use of number theory in cryptography has everyday 
application now, like when you are using a bank cart or an identity cart. In 
fact, most of pure mathematics get applied soon or later. Even “1+2+3+4+5+6+ … 
= -1/12” found application in quantum superstring theory. Some would say, OK, 
but nobody has found any application to Superstring theory, except to speculate 
on some way to marry QM and GR. Well, ironically enough, the boson string 
theory has found application in … number theory.










I envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!) 



Some people can be more gifted than others in some domain,but that does not 
make them superior. The great genius can say great stupidities, usually out of 
their field, but even in their field: they can miss the next revolution, even 
prevented it. Stupid people are only person lacking trust in themselves, and 
that is usually due to a problem of communication, notably of 
“love-communication”, very usually by parents having had the same problem. 
As a teacher, I have not yet met someone intrinsically stupid. I have met lazy 
people, shy people, or people deciding to be stupid, as it simplifies the life 
a lot,: they get an easy excuse for any failure, and they get free of 
responsibility and guilt. I have work with highly disabled people, some of them 
where unable to talk, but with computers I have seen that, well, some were 
lazy, other shy, etc. They were not stupid at all, just very handicapped, which 
somehow makes the handicap even more sad.
Intelligence can take many shapes, and very often, the idiocy is only the 
intelligence of the others. In fact, in normal situation every child is 
intelligent. Adulthood in programmed stupidity. Intelligence is the state of 
mind of believing we that we can learn, and that we don’t have the truth, + 
some self-trust. Stupidity is when we believe we have found the truth. Human 
are “superior” only because they have a much longer childhood during which they 
dare to ask question. 


Stupidity is efficacious in the short term goal. That is why you learn to obey 
when you do the military things. Short term goals and urgence is not friendly 
with the embarrassing difficult questions.






and just wanting to place this in my own mind, being, a witless, dirty 
fingered, dust-footed American peasant. All the best



All universal machine are born equal in arithmetic. And they all understand 
this soon or later. Now, some can make terrible detours, but that enriches the 
experience. The god of Mechanism is a baby, if not a terrible child. It plays 
the game hide-and-seek with itself, and lost itself frequently in what seems to 
be an infinite rabbit hole. He can wake up, or remain sleepy for long, very 
long, period. 


Best,


Bruno













Spud the peasant (grubby)





-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2018 5:07 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 1 Aug 2018, at 23:36, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:


          
    

    
    
      
        
If the cat is              always in a mixed state, discussing decoherence 
times in              the context of this wf make no sense, at least to me. But 
             if you insist on this, mustn't the overall wf be a mixed           
   state, making the radioactive source, and so forth, also              mixed 
states? 
      
    
    
    An atom can be in a superposition of decayed and not decayed because    it 
is relatively isolated. 



An atom can be measured as being in a superposition state BY YOU because it is 
relatively isolated FROM YOU.


If an atom is in a superposition state, QM-without collapse explains this, and 
explain why you cannot directly see the superposition if you interact with the 
atom. But the superposition never disappeared, it has only be be contagious on 
your own state, and like in the WM-duplication, each “copies” see the atom like 
it has deciphered and lost its means to show interferences. 


Bruno









 It doesn't radiate IR photons or have    other interactions with the 
environment.  Haven't you read    Schlosshauer's paper yet?
    
    Brent
    
    
      
        
AG
        
        
          
            

                Unrelated to this issue AFAICT. If the superposition            
    with the cat used as a starting point for your                decoherence 
analysis doesn't exist as representing                anything, it's baffling 
that any conclusions can be                reached. OTOH, if the two component 
states are mixed,                that's a fact that seems never in evidence, 
certainly                not in what I have read about decoherence theory. AG 
            
            
              
 
                Brent
              
            
            

               
            
              
 
                
                  
                    
, you have                          a two state system using the standard       
                   interpretation of superposition, meaning the                 
         system is in both states simultaneously, not a                         
 mixed state. AG 
                        
                  
                
              
            
            

              Isn't this the standard interpretation of a                
superposition of states? AG 
            
            
              
                
                  
                    
 
                    
 
                      
                      
                        
                          
 
                          
                            
                              
                                
                                  
 
                                    
                                      
                                        
It doesn't go away                                            because the 
decoherence time                                            is exceedingly 
short. 
                                      
                                    
                                    
                                    Yes is does go away.  Even light            
                        can't travel the length of a cat in                     
               a nano-second.  
                                    
                                    
                                      
                                        
And for this reason I                                            still conclude 
that                                            Schroedinger correctly          
                                  pointed out the fallacy in                    
                        the standard interpretation                             
               of superposition; namely,                                        
    that the system represented                                            by a 
superposition, is in                                            all components 
states                                            simultaneously. AG 
                                          
                                      
                                    
                                    
                                    It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't        
                            apply to the cat or other                           
         macroscopic objects, with rare                                    
laboratory exceptions. 
                                
                                

                                  Other                                      
than slit experiments where                                      superposition 
can be interpreted                                      as the system being in 
both                                      component states simultaneously,      
                                why is this interpretation                      
                extendable to all isolated quantum                              
        systems? AG 
                                
                              
                            
                            
                            ?? Any system can be mathematically                 
           represented as being in a superposition of                           
 different basis states.  It's just a                            consequence of 
being a vector in a vector                            space.  Any vector can be 
written as a sum                            of other vectors. 
                          

                            OK,                                never had a 
problem with this. AG
                                 
                          
                          
 Your use of                            the words  "interpreted" and "this      
                      interpretation" is unclear.
                          
                          
 
                          
I am                                using those words as I think                
                Schroedinger did, where he assumes a                            
    system in a superposition of states, is                                in 
all component states simultaneously.                                It is from 
that assumption, or                                interpretation, that he 
finds the                                contradiction or absurdity of a cat    
                            alive and dead simultaneously. AG
                             
                          
 
                            
                              
 
                            
                          
                        
                      
                    
                  
                
              
            
          
          ...
      
      -- 
      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.
    
    
  


-- 
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.




-- 
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.





-- 
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.




-- 
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.


-- 
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.

Reply via email to