> On 17 Jun 2019, at 00:47, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. >
I have to say I don’t see how your post is related to mine. I agree with everything, except that to solve the mind body problem, we have to derive the wave, not just the result of measurements from arithmetic, through the mode of self-reference. In that way we get the rationally justifiable part of the quanta, but also the non rationally part of them, which are helpful to explain that this solves the problem of explaining where the physical laws comes from and how they are related to consciousness. Quantum computations does not violate the Church Turing thesis. We can emulate them with a Babbage machine, but of course there is a super-exponential slow down, which, when you do the computation by hand correspond to the fact that you have to emulate quickly gigantic, but finite, number of (virtual) processor. To factories a number with 100 digits, you need about 2^100 parallel computations, when using the algorithm of shor. Digital mechanism implies this, like it implies that the observable obeys a quantum logic, but with mechanism, like I said to Trift, apparence of retrocaulity are explained by the bias brought by the first person indexical selection on some relative computation. There is no “real” retrocauslity, but I am annoyed to said this, because there is no “real” notion of causality either, in the sense that the physical causality is an abstract relation emerging from the competition between all universal numbers below our substitution level. Bruno > 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5239f88c-7c74-46f4-94ba-6e4a85309029%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/B4402293-BB58-45A3-8CF2-B117D98D56B7%40ulb.ac.be.
