date:20170123

Re: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread Brent Meeker

Sure, but then you still need to explain how an apparently classical
world obtains.

And of course it's quite possible QM does not provide an exact
description of Nature since attempts to quantize gravity run into problems.

Brent

On 1/23/2017 12:02 PM, smitra wrote:
Truly classical worlds cannot arise from QM, it's simply not possible
for the description of Nature in terms of a Hilbert space to somehow
reduce (in an exact sense) to a classical phase space. So, this whole
idea of a classical World at some macroscopic scale is not going to
work, unless you assume that QM does not provide for an exact
description of Nature.

Saibal

On 23-01-2017 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

Phillip Ball's critique of MWI.

It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where
is that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet
complete the reading of that note, though).

The MWI is not born with Everett, but with the Einstein/Bohr debate,
and eventually with von Neuman collapse of the wave theory. The
collapse of the wave is just a very mysterious happening,
contradicting the SWE,

Born postulated the probability interpretation of the wave-function
in order to give it empirical content. It doesn't "contradict"
anything - it adds a way to get observables from the SWE.

and invented to suppress the many-worlds which are implied by the
SWE.

It's questionable whether they are implied. To be "a world" means to
be a classical world. As Bohr realized having a classical world in
which records were permanent and sharable was essential. Although
there are suggestive arguments no one has yet shown how classical
worlds are implied by QM.

Brent

The non-many-world theory is just the theory saying that quantum
mechanics is false, that it does not apply to "me". It is the
coquetry of the one who want to be one and only one. But it is
consistent (which is cheap) and possible in case the brain does not
act like a machine, but that is, in this context, a highly
speculative assumption making everything more complicated. It is
never a good idea to make a theory more complex to favor one's
religious belief, like the belief is a unique physical universe.

Bruno

Brent

Forwarded Message

Use this MWI [1] to access the Aeon article. Sorry

--
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 [2].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ [4]

--
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
[2].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

[2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
[4] http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/

--
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.

History of atomic theory

2017-01-23 Thread Brent Meeker



HERE 
 
is an Aeon essay by Carlo Rovelli on the amazing prescience of our 
ancient forebears. It also a corrective to Bruno's frequent assertion 
that it was only Plato to who taught that things might be different than 
they appeared and that this contrary to the materialist school of Miletus.


Brent

--
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: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread smitra

Truly classical worlds cannot arise from QM, it's simply not possible
for the description of Nature in terms of a Hilbert space to somehow
reduce (in an exact sense) to a classical phase space. So, this whole
idea of a classical World at some macroscopic scale is not going to
work, unless you assume that QM does not provide for an exact
description of Nature.

Saibal

On 23-01-2017 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

Phillip Ball's critique of MWI.

It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where
is that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet
complete the reading of that note, though).

Born postulated the probability interpretation of the wave-function
in order to give it empirical content. It doesn't "contradict"
anything - it adds a way to get observables from the SWE.

and invented to suppress the many-worlds which are implied by the
SWE.

Brent

Bruno

Brent

Forwarded Message

Use this MWI [1] to access the Aeon article. Sorry

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ [4]

--
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
[2].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

Links:
--
[1]
https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletterutm_campaign=3700115874-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_19utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_411a82e59d-3700115874-69456137
[2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
[4] http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/

--
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: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/23/2017 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote:


Phillip Ball's critique of MWI.



It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is 
that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet complete 
the reading of that note, though).


The MWI is not born with Everett, but with the Einstein/Bohr debate, 
and eventually with von Neuman collapse of the wave theory. The 
collapse of the wave is just a very mysterious happening, 
contradicting the SWE,


Born postulated the probability interpretation of the wave-function in 
order to give it empirical content.  It doesn't "contradict" anything - 
it adds a way to get observables from the SWE.



and invented to suppress the many-worlds which are implied by the SWE.


It's questionable whether they are implied.  To be "a world" means to be 
a classical world.  As Bohr realized having a classical world in which 
records were permanent and sharable was essential. Although there are 
suggestive arguments no one has yet shown how classical worlds are 
implied by QM.


Brent

The non-many-world theory is just the theory saying that quantum 
mechanics is false, that it does not apply to "me". It is the coquetry 
of the one who want to be one and only one. But it is consistent 
(which is cheap) and possible in case the brain does not act like a 
machine, but that is, in this context, a highly speculative assumption 
making everything more complicated. It is never a good idea to make a 
theory more complex to favor one's religious belief, like the belief 
is a unique physical universe.


Bruno





Brent


 Forwarded Message 

Use this MWI 
 
to access the Aeon article. Sorry


--
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.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



--
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: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/23/2017 3:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Jan 2017, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Unless these universes are somehow, touchable, it's as if, they don't 
exist. 


Not at all. Linearitu of QM makes them untouchable, but we have still 
to accept their physical existence because they do interfere statistically


But does your theory predict linearity?  and why linearity of 
/*complex*/ valued vectors?


Brent

--
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.

How Math Works

2017-01-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3947

-- 
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: (link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

2017-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Jan 2017, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/22/2017 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The physical reality is what emerges in the limit of a competition  
between infinities of universal numbers operating below our  
substitution level.


But what does that mean?  How do they "compete" and what are they  
competing for.  What does "emerge" mean?


This is explained in step 7 already. Imagine that you want to evaluate  
if an apple will hit the ground when falling. You are in the state S  
just at the moment you let the apple free. What happens next is  
determined by all computations going through your  state S. The  
probability that the apple hits the grounds is given (roughly) by the  
measure of the histories/computation-seen-from-the-1p where the apple  
hits the ground dividec by the measure on all computations (the  
measure one which we have shown to be quantum logical). I identify  
here computation with the universal machine which execute that  
computation. By the extreme redundancy of the work of the UD in  
arithmetic, there will be an infinity, and they compete in the sense  
of the first person indeterminacy, a bit like in the WM duplication,  
except that the multiplication is by aleph_zero, or 2^aleph_0, instead  
of 2.


IT *is* more complex than that, but I want give the basic idea. The  
lath are difficult, and only the "yes/no" logic is given. The other  
probabilities needs the equiavent of Gleason theorem, which is assured  
if one of the S4GRZ1, or X1* or Z1* logic is linear enough, say. It  
emerges in the sense that all there is are 0, s(0), ..., structured by  
the + and * laws, and the self-referential logic which are justified  
by the + and * laws, as shown by Gödel, Löb & Co.


Did this help?

Bruno






Brent

--
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.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Jan 2017, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote:


Phillip Ball's critique of MWI.



It can make sense in a non mechanist theory of mind, but ... where is  
that theory? Where is the "Heisenberg cut". (I have not yet complete  
the reading of that note, though).


The MWI is not born with Everett, but with the Einstein/Bohr debate,  
and eventually with von Neuman collapse of the wave theory. The  
collapse of the wave is just a very mysterious happening,  
contradicting the SWE, and invented to suppress the many-worlds which  
are implied by the SWE. The non-many-world theory is just the theory  
saying that quantum mechanics is false, that it does not apply to  
"me". It is the coquetry of the one who want to be one and only one.  
But it is consistent (which is cheap) and possible in case the brain  
does not act like a machine, but that is, in this context, a highly  
speculative assumption making everything more complicated. It is never  
a good idea to make a theory more complex to favor one's religious  
belief, like the belief is a unique physical universe.


Bruno





Brent


 Forwarded Message 

Use this MWI  to access the Aeon article. Sorry

--
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.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 22 Jan 2017, at 00:06, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Unless these universes are somehow, touchable, it's as if, they  
don't exist.


Not at all. Linearitu of QM makes them untouchable, but we have still  
to accept their physical existence because they do interfere  
statistically. If not you need a theory like Bohm, with the known  
difficulties which are insuperable in the relativistic domain, or use  
the collapse of the wave, which leads to a dualism, a god playing  
dice, action at distance, fuzzy notion of observers, etc.


Then with computationalism, we have the many-dreams anyway, already in  
arithmetic, which is already assumed by the physicist.


Then also, are you sure you can touch more easily one universe? Again,  
that leads to an absurd (non Turing emulable) role of matter in  
psychology.





I love the topic, but it's kind of never never land.


This is perhaps due to Aristotelian prejudice. You seem to believe in  
(at least one) universe playing a fundamental role ..




Ya got wormholes, I'm interested.


... or perhaps you are just not interested in fundamental question.  
The whole point is that this question (the number of universe) is  
amenable to empirical refutation. With computationalism, to put it  
bluntly: there are zero universe, only a reality emerging from the  
first person indeterminacy of the distributed subject in infinitely  
may computations, constrained by the theoretical computer science  
constraints imposed on self-observation.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: EveryThing 
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 3:39 pm
Subject: Fwd: Correction to MWI post

Phillip Ball's critique of MWI.

Brent


 Forwarded Message 

Use this MWI  to access the Aeon article. Sorry
--
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.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

2017-01-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 22 Jan 2017, at 02:33, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> In Plato-like theology [blah blah blah]

Plato was an imbecile and theology has no field of study. 

That attitude is the one that the radicals and the fundamentalist  
appreciate the most.
Let us forbid reason in the field so that we keep the power of the  
credules that we can manipulate with terror and wishful thinking.

>  It is the option God = Matter, and is basically the  
theological assumption of the Materialist.

Theology has no field of study. 

>  you need to explain how that God-Matter succeeds in  
selecting some computation(s) among all computations.

I have no idea what "God-Matter" means,

I have defined God by the Origin/Cause/Reason of all things (matter  
appearances, histories, consciousness, ...).

When Matter is assumed to be the  Origin/Cause/Reason of all things,  
it plays the role of God, in the monist materialist metaphysics.

I very much doubt it means anything, but I don't need to explain how  
matter that obeys the laws of physics is able to perform calculations,

Yes, that is the easy part because Matter (the object of physics) has  
many varied Turing Universal Part, in both theory and empirically.

The problem for the materialist is not in the generation of  
consciousness, but in its statistical stability, due to the hugeness  
of the machine's first person indterminacy on all computations going  
through their states in arithmetic (or any grand enough physical  
reality, as examplified by the notion of Boltzman brains)

I need only observe that is can.

No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal. In all  
case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is enough for that  
task. Again, showing that something is Turing universal shows only  
that it can sustain a computation, not that it can select a  
computation from the first person point of view of a subject. It just  
cannot work, or you rely on some non Turing emulable magic.

But you need to explain why pure mathematics CAN'T do the same thing  
without the help of physics.

This is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when I explain  
this in all details in a self-contained way, but 99,9 % of it can be  
found in good textbook, and all you need to understand is the original  
definition of computable function, and the representation of  
computable function and computation by Church, Turing.

And please don't don't tell me about some textbook

If you were willing to play the role of the fair candid, I could  
explain you. But you seem decided to not change your mind, and we all  
known you very great expertise in the art of dismissing what you want  
not understand.

unless for the first time in the history of the world you've found  
as book that can calculate 2+2

Like here, as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do  
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal numbers  
do that, in arithmetic, or in a physical reality if that exists.

I have no clue if you are just joking ... I hope you are ... But I  
know that if I explain how numbers compute relatively to each others  
in arithmetic, you will come back with such jokes making hard to see  
if you misunderstanding is genuine or not.

or if you've found a book that is not made of matter that obeys the  
laws of physics.
>> You can redefine a horse's tail to be a leg and then you can  
say a horse has 5 legs, but doing so will not teach you anything  
about the nature of reality or about horses.  The only reason you'd  
make such a redefinition would be you enjoy saying "a horse has 5  
legs", and the only reason you're redefining "God" the way you have  
is you enjoy saying "I believe in God".

> Yes.

Then we agree, if the word "God" is redefined to mean a  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob then "God" exists,

It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is  
invisible in most theologies, OK. "amoral"? open problem. "Mindless?"  
Perhaps? With computationalism, the role of God is played by the  
concept of arithmetical truth (a highly non computable concept), and  
it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth of all  
arithmetical sentence, but no need to take this as more than a simple  
metaphor.

"

and if a tail is a leg then horses have 5 "legs", there is  
absolutely no doubt about either conclusion. The only trouble is now  
there are 2 openings in the English language, one for a appendage  
that supports an animal's weight and provides it with locomotion,  
and the other for an omnipotent omniscient conscious being who  
created the universe. What new words do you suggest should stand for  
the old meanings of the words "leg" and "God"?

All dictionnaries contains the general philosophical notion of God.  
The term is useful for those who doubt

Re: Correction to MWI post

History of atomic theory

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: Correction to MWI post

How Math Works

Re: (link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

10 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information