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.