R: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

['scerir' via Everything List]

Messaggio originale

Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com

Data: 05/09/2016 0.52

A: "Everything List"

Cc: 

Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose





On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:




Messaggio originale

Da: "Alan Grayson" 

Data: 30/08/2016 18.23

A: "Everything List"

Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem 
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
FWIW, I just meant that no possible signalling (due to the random nature of the 
measurements) does not, IMO, mean we don't have FTL transmission of 
information. I read Bruce's comment to imply otherwise, perhaps mistakenly. AG
### I do not remember Bruce's comment. I think FTL information between two 
observers and FTL information (or "influences") between entangled pairs are 
different things. But there is another problem: is space-time independent of 
entanglement? 
### Hi Alan, read also
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795






-- 

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.

Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Alan Grayson" 
> Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
> A: "Everything List"
> Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
>
> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling 
> theorem puts this issue to rest. AG
> http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
>
>
FWIW, I just meant that no possible signalling (due to the random nature of 
the measurements) does not, IMO, mean we don't have FTL transmission of 
information. I read Bruce's comment to imply otherwise, perhaps mistakenly. 
AG

>
> ### Hi Alan, read also
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795
>
>

-- 
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.

R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

['scerir' via Everything List]

Messaggio originale

Da: "Alan Grayson" 

Data: 30/08/2016 18.23

A: "Everything List"

Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem 
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
### Hi Alan, read also
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795

-- 
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.

Re: Aaronson/Penrose

[agrayson2000]

Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay grade, 
but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. As for 
the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a slot 
machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what happened 
to the other thousands of outcomes I didn't get, I'd think that would be a 
crazy question. But that's the question some physicists ask when they are 
confronted with the non-linearity of collapse in the Copenhagen 
Interpretation. Accepting non linearity and actual time irreversibility 
(not FAPP) is an easier concept to accept than the real or fictional other 
worlds necessary to support the MWI. BTW, the time irreversibility is not 
FAPP since the collapsed wf, when inserted back into the SWE, recovers only 
itself exactly at an earlier time, but not the original wf which collapsed. 
AG

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:16:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM,  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
>>  In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob 
>> have 
>>  to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or 
>> (-,-') 
>>  worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything 
>>  significant to the discussion. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which 
>> are 
>> >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. 
>> >> 
>> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. 
>> > 
>> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows 
>> from 
>> > linearity. 
>>
>> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean 
>> absolutely nothing.
>
>
>
> This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion.
>
> Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not 
> understand or disagree with.
>
>
>
> "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of 
>> total nonsense. 
>>
>
>
> OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other 
> posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and there 
> and then adding to the prejudices.
>
> To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of 
> the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without 
> any 
> collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the 
> SWE 
> ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the 
> global 
> third person picture.
>
> Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p 
> sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) 
> the 
> indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic (first 
> person or first person plural). 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality 
>> violation 
>> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or 
>> > Bohmian particules. 
>> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that 
>> there 
>> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are 
>> real 
>> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. 
>>
>> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell 
>> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over 
>> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. 
>>
>
> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling 
> theorem puts this issue
> to rest. AG
>
>
> In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this,   
>

 I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark 
 above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of 
 information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim 
 (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified.



 Guess what, you were completely wrong.

 I was the 

Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Sep 2016, at 09:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Am 29.08.2016 um 15:02 schrieb Bruno Marchal:




...


Irrealism on the other hand states the the external world is a part
of the virtual world. I guess that Bruno's theory is close to
irrealism.



Except it is not a theory, but a theorem (in the mechanist theory,
which of course is not mine).

To avoid irrealism, you need to do a strong ontological commitment,
which contradicts mechanism + the usual weak use of Occam.

The author does not seem to be aware of the first person
indeterminacy , nor that mechanism and materialism are incompatible
(unless introducing an infinite amount of magic). Few are aware of
this, still, and I am not much astonished, given what I am reported
very often.



I have informed the author about your paper. Let us see what happens.



Well, ... thanks.

Best,

Bruno



--
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.

Re: Aaronson/Penrose

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:




On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM,  wrote:


On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:




On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:




On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob  
have
 to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or  
(-,-')

 worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything
 significant to the discussion.
>>>
>>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which  
are

>>> necessarily there in QM+collapse.
>>
>> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof.
>
> By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows  
from

> linearity.

Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean
absolutely nothing.



This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion.

Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not  
understand or disagree with.





"locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of
total nonsense.



OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other  
posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and  
there and then adding to the prejudices.


To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame  
of the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that  
without any collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the  
linearity of the SWE ensure that at any time everything is local,  
even computable, in the global third person picture.


Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p  
sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in  
arithmetic) the indeterminacies and the non local appearances are  
purely epistemic (first person or first person plural).








> There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality  
violation

> is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or
> Bohmian particules.
> I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that  
there
> was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are  
real

> action at a distance. So I think the point has been made.

There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell
non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over
thinking that non-locality means FTL action.

Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no- 
signalling theorem puts this issue

to rest. AG


In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this,

I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark  
above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission  
of information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that,  
your claim (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified.



Guess what, you were completely wrong.

I was the one who denies the FTL.

My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny  
FTL in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny  
FTL in this world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of  
the wf, and in his appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to  
say, if you can't send information, there can't be FTL. But here  
"send information" in the context of no-signalling theorem just  
means you can't send a message of choice. AG


What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG

The article I posted denies that the apparent contradiction between  
relativity and non locality can be resolved simply by appealing to  
the non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to assert.


I was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation  
does not force FTL, even without signalling possible.


My point, shared by others in the thread,  was that with the MWI  
restores both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark  
and Bruce is that even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation  
proves that nature is 3p non local, and that action at a distance  
exists.






I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I  
posted is irrelevant to the discussion. AG


It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that  
FTL exists, even without possible signalling.


Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG

Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the  
MWI to deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling  
theorem? AG


Hope I didn't offend any true believers in the MWI,


MWI is a theory. I have 

Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

Am 29.08.2016 um 15:02 schrieb Bruno Marchal:




...


Irrealism on the other hand states the the external world is a part
of the virtual world. I guess that Bruno's theory is close to
irrealism.



Except it is not a theory, but a theorem (in the mechanist theory,
which of course is not mine).

To avoid irrealism, you need to do a strong ontological commitment,
which contradicts mechanism + the usual weak use of Occam.

The author does not seem to be aware of the first person
indeterminacy , nor that mechanism and materialism are incompatible
(unless introducing an infinite amount of magic). Few are aware of
this, still, and I am not much astonished, given what I am reported
very often.



I have informed the author about your paper. Let us see what happens.

Best wishes,

Evgenii

--
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.