On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Jun 2019, at 15:35, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell >>>>> inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one >>>>> polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the >>>>> photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a >>>>> third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like >>>>> nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails >>>>> would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the >>>>> photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by >>>>> attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a >>>>> violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a >>>>> "quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with >>>>> one >>>>> photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure >>>>> there >>>>> are not some other statistical effect at work between photons. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden >>>> variables, and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and >>>> p(X,D) is the joint distribution, then it assumes >>>> >>>> p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D) >>>> >>>> an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption. >>>> >>> >>> The trouble with your fundamentalist assumption is that it does not work >>> in real physics. You have only to give a plausible dynamical model of how >>> this works for the Aspect experiment, say, and we will accept that you have >>> a point. But you are unable to do this. I would lay long odds on the fact >>> they you will be unable to do it, even given an infinite amount of time and >>> computing power. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> People can go though life believing whatever they want. >> >> @philipthrift >> > > This is not about beliefs. The nonlocal aspects of QM are verified with > many experiments that have been repeated. The Aspect experiment of the 80s > was a cornerstone on a verification of Bell's theorem. This is what nature > does, and what nature "IS" is what nature "DOES.” > > > OK. If you define “nature” in this way, physics is typically not local, as > a trivial consequence of mechanism (any piece of matter depends on the > entire universal dovetailing in arithmetic). And nature only does things, > without ever existing as an object. It is the loci of where the > consciousness flux in arithmetic get deep enough to stabilise the > consciousness of “histories”. Note that there is a sort of “trivial” > truing-tropic retrocauslity: you survive only in the worlds where you > continue to survive. That is what we get when we add the consistency nuance > <>t to provability ([]p). This introduce a quantisation of all the continua > experienced by the observers (basically []<>p, which provides a purely > arithmetical interpretation of quantum logic, with an intuitive > “many-histories” aspect. It is a matter of work to refute this theory, > which explains rather well both consciousness and the appearance of matter. > The quantum aspect of nature is due to the digital view a machine can have > when she look below her substitution level). > > Although I have not yet a proof that the physics “in the head of the > universal number/machine” violate Bell’s inequality, I can argue you would > need some miracle for this not to be the case, as it is a priori extremely > not boolean nor intuitionistic. We need to optimise the G* theorem prover > to solve this. > > All non local aspect, as well as all indeterministic aspect comes only > from the ignorance, unavoidable for any universal number, on which > computations support her below the substitution level (and there is a > continuum there) and above the substitution level, where there is a > countable of distinguishable universal machine explanations. > > From a *theoretical physician” point of view, mechanism implies a very > deep new invariance for the physical laws: the laws are independent of the > choice of the phi_i. Both for the ontology (which needs only to be sigma_1 > complete, i.e Turing universal) and for the definition of the observers, > which is basically just a universal number with rational belief (that is > arithmetically true beliefs close for the modus opens inference rules). > > It is a very strong invariant: physics is the same for all universal > machine (with or without Mechanism). > > When adding the assumption of Mechanism (aka Computationalism) that > invariant becomes so strong as to define the purpose of physics: to predict > future, when belonging to infinitely many histories below and above the > substitution level). > > The theology (and thus the physics) of the universal Turing machine is the > same for the relativized Turing universal machine on Oracle or on Other > universal machines, but usually a universal machine cannot distinguish a > (non computable) oracle from the output of some deep (necessary long) > computation(s). > > Bruno > > I wrote a part of the thread on Quine-statements, based on the Hamkin's work where I only looked at the slides and not yet the paper, where I proposed doing this with quantum computer. I wrote a couple of elementary Python codes for the QE machine IBM has to prepare states and run then through Hadamard gates. The thought occurred to me that this Quining could be done quantum mechanically as a set of Hadamard gates that duplicate a qubit or an bipartite entangled qubit. This is a part of my ansatz that a measurement is a sort of Gödel numbering of quantum states as qubit data in other quantum states.
Quantum computations are mapped into an orthomodular lattice that does not obey the distributive property. The distributive law of p and (q or r) = (p and q) or (p and r) fails. The reason is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Suppose we let p = momentum in the interval [0, P], q = position in the interval [-x, x] and r = particle in interval [x, y]. The proposition p and (q or r) is true if this spread in momentum [0, P] is equal to the reciprocal of the spread of position [-x, y] with P = ħ/sqrt(y^2 + x^2). The distributive law would then mean P = ħ/|y| or P = ħ/|x| which is clearly false. This is the major difference with quantum logic and Boolean classical logic. These lattices of quantum logic have polytope realizations. This is in fact another way of realizing that QM can't be built up from classical physics. If retrocausality were the case then quantum orthomodular lattices, which act on convex sets on L^p spaces with p = ½ would be somehow built from lattices acting on convex sets with p → ∞. A quantum state has a set of quantum numbers, say spin, momentum, charge, isospin etc, and it really is best not to see that the particle has these numbers, but that these quantum numbers ARE the particle or quantum state. It is not worth talking about a particle as a “something” which possesses these quantities, but rather that these quantities are what define a particle. So a quantum state or particle is then determined by various vertices on a lattice or polytope and we dispense with any metaphysics of there being some other “substance.” This is most likely my last entry in this thread as it has exceeded 100. When things start to paginate I find it annoying. LC > > > > LC > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ed8c409-4d4d-42c9-914b-69f480714ceb%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ed8c409-4d4d-42c9-914b-69f480714ceb%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5239f88c-7c74-46f4-94ba-6e4a85309029%40googlegroups.com.
