Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

On ‎Tuesday‎, ‎May‎ ‎8‎, ‎2018‎ ‎02‎:‎42‎:‎47‎ ‎PM‎ ‎PDT, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:  
 
 On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:


​> ​The firewall occurs because Hawking radiation that is emitted is entangled 
with the black hole. However, once the black hole is reduced to half its mass 
more of the Hawking radiation is entangled with the black hole and previously 
emitted Hawking radiation. This means previously emitted Hawking radiation in a 
2-way or bipartite entanglement is now in a 3-way or tripartite entanglement. 
This is not a unitary process in quantum mechanics.


​I understand that part, but I don't understand why breaking​ ​the entanglement 
would make things hot, much less become as hot as its possible for things to 
be, the Planck temperature. 
 John K Clark

The firewall is a conjecture. If you want to avoid this violation of quantum 
monogomy (a bad term IMO) you then assume there is no transition across the 
horizon once this violation starts to happen at the Page time. Of course this 
will not happen all at once and at half the black hole mass, at around 90% the 
lifetime which for a solar BH is 10^{67} years, there is a transition where the 
passage across the horizon is problematic. This lack of transition means by 
some means everything that reaches the horizon is demolished. The horizon in a 
sense is converted into a singularity. 
-I guess that puts the kibosh on any  hypothetical 
black hole adventure tour idea, other than the suicidal kind perhaps... 
you know,  those spendy affairs arranged for inter-galactic gadzillionaires 
fatigued after millions of years of existence, dreaming of sweet oblivion, to 
balance the white-out overload of endless being. Or something like that. :)
-Chris
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 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: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> The firewall occurs because Hawking radiation that is emitted is 
>> entangled with the black hole. However, once the black hole is reduced to 
>> half its mass more of the Hawking radiation is entangled with the black 
>> hole and previously emitted Hawking radiation. This means previously 
>> emitted Hawking radiation in a 2-way or bipartite entanglement is now in a 
>> 3-way or tripartite entanglement. This is not a unitary process in quantum 
>> mechanics.
>>
>
> ​I understand that part, but I don't understand why breaking​
>  
> ​the entanglement would make things hot, much less become as hot as its 
> possible for things to be, the Planck temperature. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

The firewall is a conjecture. If you want to avoid this violation of 
quantum monogomy (a bad term IMO) you then assume there is no transition 
across the horizon once this violation starts to happen at the Page time. 
Of course this will not happen all at once and at half the black hole mass, 
at around 90% the lifetime which for a solar BH is 10^{67} years, there is 
a transition where the passage across the horizon is problematic. This lack 
of transition means by some means everything that reaches the horizon is 
demolished. The horizon in a sense is converted into a singularity. 

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 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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:40:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2018, at 20:35, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 May 2018, at 05:46, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:12:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> interpretation.
>
>
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you 
> agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many 
> superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse 
> postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> worlds/states/minds. Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does 
> not leads to a jelly quagmire of everything, by taking the first person 
> view (what he called subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as 
> much quasi orthogonal that the results they could have attributed to a 
> collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is purely “subjective” 
> (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To reverse the 
> entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical universe in 
> some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult.
>
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable 
> theory). Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered 
> to be a plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Relativity affirms action at a distance. 
>
>
> ?
>
> Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the 
> action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s 
> theory of electromagnetism.
>
>
> *Wrong. Completely wrong. Ever hear of the light cone in relativity? *
>
>
> Well, yes of course.
>
>
>
> *Light-like events are causally connected, which MEANS action at a 
> distance, *
>
>
> ?
>
> It means on the contrary that in the cone, we can have causal connection, 
> because they don’t need going faster than light. It means NO action at a 
> distance.
>
>
>
>
> *whereas space-like events are not.*
>
>
> Which means no action at a distance (and that is why the EPR-BELL-Aspect 
> theory and experience is astonishing. The Debate here was about the idea 
> that with the MW theory, we keep the non-locality and Bell’s violation 
> appearance in single branche, but that by looking at the entire wave, we 
> see that is a subjective phenomenon.
>
>
>
> * Relativity, and E after being modified by Einstein, affirm action at a 
> distance. *
>
>
> Einstein said, after EPR, that if an action at a distance was physically 
> real, he would have prefer to be a plumber instead of a physicists ever 
> related to such magic, that he qualified as spooky.
>
>
> *You're confused. *
>
>
> Avoid ad hominem remark, please.
>
>
>
> *By SPOOKY action at a distance, Einstein was referring to INSTANTANEOUS 
> action at a distance.*
>
>
>
> By “action at a distance” we have always mean here the spooky one, which 
> are the one that Aspect experience imposes on any mono-universe theory. 
> Everyone agreed on this (what is sometimes debated is that such spooky 
> action at a distance exists in a many-universe view).
>

*You're confusing the issue with your home-grown definitions. Notice what 
Einstein said: "SPOOKY action at a distance".  What is SPOOKY? 
INSTANTANEOUS is SPOOKY.  ERGO, spooky action at a distance MEANS 
instantaneous action at a distance. AG*

> * In relativity and E, there is action at light speed, but not 
> instantaneously. This is action at a distance but not spooky because NOT 
> instantaneously. *
>
>
>
> No one ever doubted this. You are the one coming up with “action at a 
> distance” being the usual local one, which introduced the confusion. We 
> would not talk of action AT a distance, if they were not instantaneous. 
> That is what all Bell’s inequality violation or not is all about.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> *AG *
>
>
> Relativity, and I would say Everett (non collapse) saves physics from 
> action at a distance. Even Newton knew quickly that his law of gravitation 
> was dubious, because it evolves action at a distance. SR and GR don’t, nor, 
> Imo, the relative state of QM without collapse.
>
>
>
>
> *Newton's gravity theory has instantaneous 

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

[John Clark]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​
> The firewall occurs because Hawking radiation that is emitted is entangled
> with the black hole. However, once the black hole is reduced to half its
> mass more of the Hawking radiation is entangled with the black hole and
> previously emitted Hawking radiation. This means previously emitted Hawking
> radiation in a 2-way or bipartite entanglement is now in a 3-way or
> tripartite entanglement. This is not a unitary process in quantum mechanics.
>

​I understand that part, but I don't understand why breaking​

​the entanglement would make things hot, much less become as hot as its
possible for things to be, the Planck temperature.

 John K Clark

  ​

>
>

-- 
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: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> * an atomic clock lowered to near the event horizon will measure the 
>> frequency of a photon that is a few ev far from the black to have very high 
>> energy.  So what looks like low temperature Hawking radiation at infinity 
>> will look like high temperature for the object suspended near the horizon, 
>> because that objects internal "clocks" run slower than when it was at 
>> infinity.*
>>
>
> If I was hovering just outside the Event Horizon in a super powerful 
> spaceship I could observe the Black Hole evaporating in just a few minutes, 
> even though for you who is far away in a much weaker gravitational field 
> that would take many trillions of years; the only problem is I would also 
> observe many trillions of years worth of Hawking Radiation in just a few 
> minutes, and that would cook me. However if I had no spaceship and was just 
> freely falling through the Event Horizon the Hawking Radiation wouldn't 
> bother me at all; or at least that was the idea before 5 or 6 years ago 
> when the firewall/ entanglement business came up which seems to say even 
> the freely falling man will be cooked at the Event Horizon, he would reach 
> the Planck temperature which is about 10^32 K, but I don't understand Black 
> Hole Firewalls worth a damn.
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726#b8
>

You have this right with respect to the time situation. An accelerated 
observer close to the horizon witnesses lots of Hawking radiation and 
highly blue shifted as well.

The firewall occurs because Hawking radiation that is emitted is entangled 
with the black hole. However, once the black hole is reduced to half its 
mass more of the Hawking radiation is entangled with the black hole and 
previously emitted Hawking radiation. This means previously emitted Hawking 
radiation in a 2-way or bipartite entanglement is now in a 3-way or 
tripartite entanglement. This is not a unitary process in quantum mechanics.
 

>
>
>
> Most Hawking radiation originates where the tidal forces are the greatest, 
> and that would be at the Event Horizon. The closer I hover above the Event 
> Horizon the slower my clock will tick, so if I hover close enough I can 
> watch the entire Black Hole evaporate away in just a few minutes by my 
> clock even though for you back on Earth that would take a billion trillion 
> years or so. The thing that causes Black Hole evaporation is Hawking 
> radiation, so if I observe one I'm going to have to observe the other, 
> although "observe" may not be the right word, "incinerate" might be better.
>
>
This pertains to the accelerated observer. An inertial observer witnesses 
most Hawking radiation occurring at around 4m or twice the radius as the 
horizon radius. This radiation is the same an accelerated observer would 
witness. There is a sort of nonlocality at play.

LC
 

>
> ​I understand ​
> why after half the Black Hole has evaporated further radiated photons 
> would, on the face of it, be entangled with 3 things, and if that is 
> forbidden by quantum mechanics then one of those entanglements would need 
> to be broken
> ​.​
>  
> ​But
>  what I don't understand is why breaking the 
> ​quantum ​
> link with the Black Hole would make things hot.
> ​ ​
> Joseph Polchinski, they guy who came up with the firewall idea said:
>
>  
>
> *“It’s a violent process, like breaking the bonds of a molecule, and it 
> releases energy​.​The energy generated by severing lots of twins would be 
> enormous. The event horizon would literally be a ring of fire that burns 
> anyone falling through”*
> ​But why? Why would breaking quantum entanglement ​release energy and 
> produce heat, what does one have to do with the other? 
>  
> ​I hope somebody on the list who understands Black Hole Firewalls better 
> than I do can explain this to me.​
>
> John K Clark 
>

-- 
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: Entanglement of macro objects

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/8/2018 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:

...
It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep 
questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that 
appears classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate 
and equal aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then 
one must deal with objective loss of quantum information.


Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural 
numbers do not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read 
my papers for proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability 
theory, notably to understand that computation is an arithmetical 
notion. I can give references.

The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital.
Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing 
emulable (consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain 
transplant). It makes physics independent of the choice of the 
“ontology” as long as it is Turing universal, and that it has no 
induction axioms, nor infinity axioms. Note also that the physical 
universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, nor is consciousness (amazingly 
enough: I am aware this is counter-intuitive).


That turns your whole argument into a redcutio, sense at the beginning 
it assumes one can say "yes" to the doctor and have one's consciousness 
preserved by replacement of one's brain by a classical computer.


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: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

​> ​
> * an atomic clock lowered to near the event horizon will measure the
> frequency of a photon that is a few ev far from the black to have very high
> energy.  So what looks like low temperature Hawking radiation at infinity
> will look like high temperature for the object suspended near the horizon,
> because that objects internal "clocks" run slower than when it was at
> infinity.*
>

If I was hovering just outside the Event Horizon in a super powerful
spaceship I could observe the Black Hole evaporating in just a few minutes,
even though for you who is far away in a much weaker gravitational field
that would take many trillions of years; the only problem is I would also
observe many trillions of years worth of Hawking Radiation in just a few
minutes, and that would cook me. However if I had no spaceship and was just
freely falling through the Event Horizon the Hawking Radiation wouldn't
bother me at all; or at least that was the idea before 5 or 6 years ago
when the firewall/ entanglement business came up which seems to say even
the freely falling man will be cooked at the Event Horizon, he would reach
the Planck temperature which is about 10^32 K, but I don't understand Black
Hole Firewalls worth a damn.

http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726#b8


Most Hawking radiation originates where the tidal forces are the greatest,
and that would be at the Event Horizon. The closer I hover above the Event
Horizon the slower my clock will tick, so if I hover close enough I can
watch the entire Black Hole evaporate away in just a few minutes by my
clock even though for you back on Earth that would take a billion trillion
years or so. The thing that causes Black Hole evaporation is Hawking
radiation, so if I observe one I'm going to have to observe the other,
although "observe" may not be the right word, "incinerate" might be better.


​I understand ​
why after half the Black Hole has evaporated further radiated photons
would, on the face of it, be entangled with 3 things, and if that is
forbidden by quantum mechanics then one of those entanglements would need
to be broken
​.​

​But
 what I don't understand is why breaking the
​quantum ​
link with the Black Hole would make things hot.
​ ​
Joseph Polchinski, they guy who came up with the firewall idea said:



*“It’s a violent process, like breaking the bonds of a molecule, and it
releases energy​.​The energy generated by severing lots of twins would be
enormous. The event horizon would literally be a ring of fire that burns
anyone falling through”*
​But why? Why would breaking quantum entanglement ​release energy and
produce heat, what does one have to do with the other?

​I hope somebody on the list who understands Black Hole Firewalls better
than I do can explain this to me.​

John K Clark

-- 
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: Entanglement

[John Clark]

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

​> ​
> Classical situations involving the second law of thermodynamics
> (increasing entropy) are reversible, though reversal is improbable because
> the second law is statistical.


​If you had to bet which of our laws of physics physicists in the year
10,000 would still say is true what would it be? I'd pick the second law of
thermodynamics. I don't expect it to happen but I can at least fantasize
about a experimental finding that violated the first law and energy was
created or destroyed, but the second law is based on there being more ways
to be disorganized than organized and I don't see any way around that.

 John K Clark

-- 
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: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

>
> >
>> ​>​
>> I think you're confused about the difference between what a model says
>> and what reality says. One model may say you can safely march across that
>> bridge and another model might say the bridge will collapse, but it makes
>> no difference which model you believe when you cross th​
>> ​e​
>> bridge, it will either fall down or it won't.
>
>
> *​> ​Unfortunately you are using "model" in a different sense to how
> Bruno(or logicians generally) uses it. The real world bridge is a​ ​model.*

If the real world bridge is a model then give me a example of something
that is not a model, if you can not then the word "model" has no meaning.
Unlike the Continuum Hypothesis the Goldbach Conjecture is subject to the
potential of experimental falsification, if logicians eventually proved
that it is true, that is to say they started with nothing but their axioms
and derived it, but then the next day a computer found a huge even number
that was NOT the sum of two prime numbers I think logicians would be very
upset, or at least the competent ones would be. I think they would say that
shows their present axioms must not be "sound" in the technical sense and
need to be modified. I don't think they would say "the laws of physics that
the computer runs on must be wrong and our model is right and every even
number is the sum of two primes and thats that and I don't want to hear
anymore about it"; but if I'm wrong and they did say that then I would no
longer be interested in anything logicians said in the future because they
would be jackasses. But I don’t think they’re jackasses because good
logicians know there is a difference between proof and truth, physics will
always tell you the truth but a proof is only as good as the axioms it is
based on.

> ​> ​
>
> *Your models would be called theories, and the real world bridge​ ​either
> satisfies it or not.*


You say the real world bridge is a theory, so now we have theories about
theories? Give me an example of something that is not a theory, if you can
not then like "model" the word "theory" has no meaning either.
​

 John K Clark​



​

-- 
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: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 May 2018, at 02:20, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:51:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 7 May 2018, at 03:19, Brent Meeker  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/6/2018 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 2 May 2018, at 02:28, Lawrence Crowell  wrote:
 
 On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
 An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its 
 significance on John Baez's blog.  It agrees with my intuition that the 
 mathematical idea of "finite" is not so obvious. 
 
 Brent 
 
 
 This gets into the rarefied atmosphere of degrees of unprovability. I have 
 a book by Lerman on the subject, which I can read maybe 25 pages into 
 before I am largely confused and lost. I would really need to be far 
 better grounded in this. The idea is that one may ask if things are 
 diagonal up to ω ordinarlity, which is standard Gödel/Turing machine 
 stuff. Then we might however have Halting or provability out to ω + n, or 
 2ω to nω and then how about ω^n and then n^ω and now make is bigger with 
 ω^ω and so forth. Then this in principle may continue onwards beyond the 
 alephs into least accessible cardinals and so forth. One has this vast and 
 maybe endless tower of greater transfinite models. 
 
 Finite systems that are well defined are cyclic groups and related 
 structures. A mathematical system that has some artificial bound on it is 
 not going to satisfy any universal requirements. The most one can have is 
 finite but unbounded. So long as one does not have some series or 
 progression that grows endlessly this can work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With mechanism, we don’t really have to take care of the non-standard model 
>>> of arithmetic, because it can be proved that even addition and 
>>> multiplication are not (Church-Turing) computable.
>>> 
>>> The church-Turing thesis makes computability absolute in the sense that 
>>> what can be proved to be computable or non computable will be true in *all* 
>>> models of any arithmetical theories. If a machine (or number, to emphasise 
>>> their finiteness) is universal, it is universal in all models or 
>>> interpretation of the ontological theories.
>> 
>> But don't you take all arithmetic theories to include the axioms that say 
>> every number has a successor?
> 
> Yes. Where is the problem? I could do without, and use the Gaussian integers, 
> where numbers can have an up and right successors, if you prefer.
> 
> I could do this point on all inductive system having some,operations making 
> them Turing universal. But elementary arithmetic, and its primary school 
> interpretation (assuming students and teachers are not zombie!) is enough.
> 
> Like I just said to John, I assume less, far less, than most scientists, 
> despite feeling close to Moderatus, the advaita veda, Lao-Ze, etc. The 
> universal machine which knows that she is universal is quite close, when you 
> look at its G/G* theology.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Peano number theory is incomplete, for there is no way the system can prove 
> it will define every possible real number. 


All theories of arithmetic are incomplete. More generally all theories in which 
we can define a Universal machine is incomplete.

Then Peano arithmetic is just not talking about real numbers.

BTW, the first order theory of the real is complete, but that is why it is too 
weak to define a universal machine.

Then real numbers + trigonometry is Turing complete, but that is because 
trigonometry can bu used to define the natural numbers in the real numbers.

Logicians have understood that the real numbers is only a big simplification of 
the natural numbers. It is a simple exercise to solve Fremat in the real, and a 
very difficult subject research to solve the same problem for the natural 
numbers (cf Wiles).




> A form of this could be seen as a form of Berry paradox where most numbers 
> between 10^{10^{10^{10}}} and 10^{10^{10^{10^{10 have no possible way of 
> being "named.”

? (You can name each of them). If we give you enough time. It is different from 
the thing we can really not name or define in arithmetic, or in any theory 
having arithmetic as a sub theory. 




> From a practical perspective there are not enough quantum bits or particles 
> within our causal domain one might use to name most of these numbers.


Assuming such domain exists, but with mechanism, it can’t.



> What ever limits you place on the size of the name that bound is inevitably 
> violated, which leads in the infinite sense to a Cantor-like diagonalization 
> because it is non-enumerable. It does mean we can't prove there are not 
> oddball situation way out there on the number line. This does not though mean 
> things are really that quirky.


With mechanism, I prefer (and is probably 

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 May 2018, at 01:32, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
> ​> ​in some model CH is true (Gödel) and in some model CH is false (Cohen).
>  
> That is incorrect. Godel showed that if the CH is false it would not produce 
> any contradictions in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory plus the Axiom Of Choice 
> (ZFC), but that does not prove that the CH is false.


OK, but that is prove by building a model where CH is false, like we can prove 
the independence of Euclid postulate by building a model satisfying all axioms 
+ the negation of the parallel postulate. 
The notion of truth is always relativised to a model, in logic.

Bruno 



> And Cohen proved that if the CH is true it would not produce any 
> contradiction in ZFC, but that doesn't prove its true either. What the two of 
> them did prove is that ZFC has nothing to say about Continuum Hypothesis, it 
> just doesn't know if its true or not. 
>  
> And I think you're confused about the difference between what a model says 
> and what reality says. One model may say you can safely march across that 
> bridge and another model might say the bridge will collapse, but it makes no 
> difference which model you believe when you cross t​h​at bridge, it will 
> either fall down or it won't.
> 
> ​John K Clark​
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 May 2018, at 22:42, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​> ​You invoke your God “Matter”
> 
> ​Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before.​ 

You did. By God I mean a supernatural force capable of doing magical things. 
That is how you are using the primary universe (often called the Second God of 
Aristotle) constantly to avoid the mechanist logical consequence. You seem to 
believe that a Physical Universe, is able to select what computation is felt pr 
not felt, or real or not real, among the computations emulated in arithmetic. 
That requires magic, of a sort not available when we assume mechanism.


>  
> ​> ​to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis.
> 
> The consequence of the physics is more fundamental hypothesis is that we'd 
> expect to find lots of examples of physics doing mathematics but no examples 
> of mathematics doing physics, and that is exactly precisely what we do in 
> fact see.  


You have clairvoyance?

Primary matter is a concept in metaphysics. You identify physics and 
physicalism: that is begging the question by providing the answer, and then 
finding confirmation, and not listening to the debunking.





>> ​>​>>​ ​It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the 
>> quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with 
>> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all 
>> computations, not just the quantum one. 
>> 
>> ​​>> ​I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does 
>> either.​
> 
> ​> ​Yes, OK. I summed up what follows from after step 3. 
> 
> Then that is yet another good reason for me to have stopped reading after you 
> couldn't defend step 3 by answer even the simplest questions about it; 
> apparently things get even more incoherent after that point, not that it 
> matters, if step 3 is wrong then step 4, whatever it may be, is irrelevant.   
> ​ 


You have made unintelligible statements, or just drop the necessary nuances 
brought by the existence of self-duplication until now.

If you have a new argument state it. But the last one where shown invalid.




> 
> ​​>> ​Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all 
> these years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines.​
> 
> ​> ​Those two lines have made some people building LISP machines already.
> 
> ​Every single LISP machine in existence is made of atoms that obey the laws 
> of physics.


In your theory, shown inconsistent with computationalism.

Bruno



> There are no exceptions.​ 
> 
> ​>> ​to do that you need physics.
> 
> ​> ​In your theory. But then you should not say yes to a future “doctor” as 
> you did. I’m afraid you are inconsistent.
> 
> ​I said I am the way atoms behave when they are organized in a ​Johnkclarkian 
> way, and I said physics is more fundamental than mathematics. Where in the 
> world is the inconsistency in that? 
> 
> ​>> ​you need INTEL's microchips. ​
> 
> ​> ​They would not exist if their cousins were not discovered before (in 
> arithmetic, combinator logic, etc.).
> 
> ​I agree, humans need the language of mathematics to help them understand 
> whats going on at the physical level so they can make the chips. But the 
> question I keep asking and you are unable to answer is if mathematics is more 
> fundamental than physics why do INTEL microchips even NEED to exist?  
>  
> ​> ​You say a truism: to get a universal physical number, we need the 
> physical.
> 
>  I have no idea what a "universal physical number" is and I doubt anybody 
> other than you does either but never mind, whatever it means you just 
> admitted physics can do something that mathematics can't.
>   
> Why would any book be able to do a computation?
> 
> ​You tell me!! Every time I say pure mathematics can't calculate anything you 
> say some textbook is a counterexample to my claim. ​ 
>  
> ​> ​if you succeed in understanding the chapter 4 of the Davis book​ ​​you 
> would understand that​ [...]​
> 
> ​... ​chapter 4 of the Davis book​ can't calculate one damn thing
> 
>  ​> ​you have to describe me the “physical oracle”
> 
> ​Oh it would be easy to describe one, its a small rectangular box and you may 
> have one in your pocket right now, its called a "iPhone".
>   
> ​> ​You just impose your god ​[...] ​In your religion.​ [...] ​You invoke 
> your God “Matter”
> 
> ​Bruno, you really need to get some fresh material, ​I humbly suggest "1001 
> insults and put-downs", its only $9.95 on Amazon:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Insults-Put-Downs-Comebacks-Steven-Price/dp/1599210738 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe 

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2018, at 20:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 4 May 2018, at 05:46, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:12:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> > wrote:
> 
> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> interpretation.
> 
> 
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you agree 
> (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many superposed 
> worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse postulate ONLY 
> to avoid the proliferation of the alternate worlds/states/minds. Everett is 
> just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of 
> everything, by taking the first person view (what he called subjective) of 
> the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal that the 
> results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and the 
> irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in 
> principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go 
> outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, 
> is rather difficult.
> 
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). 
> Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a 
> plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Relativity affirms action at a distance.
> 
> ?
> 
> Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the 
> action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s 
> theory of electromagnetism.
> 
> Wrong. Completely wrong. Ever hear of the light cone in relativity?
> 
> Well, yes of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Light-like events are causally connected, which MEANS action at a distance,
> 
> ?
> 
> It means on the contrary that in the cone, we can have causal connection, 
> because they don’t need going faster than light. It means NO action at a 
> distance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whereas space-like events are not.
> 
> Which means no action at a distance (and that is why the EPR-BELL-Aspect 
> theory and experience is astonishing. The Debate here was about the idea that 
> with the MW theory, we keep the non-locality and Bell’s violation appearance 
> in single branche, but that by looking at the entire wave, we see that is a 
> subjective phenomenon.
> 
> 
> 
> Relativity, and E after being modified by Einstein, affirm action at a 
> distance.
> 
> Einstein said, after EPR, that if an action at a distance was physically 
> real, he would have prefer to be a plumber instead of a physicists ever 
> related to such magic, that he qualified as spooky.
> 
> You're confused.

Avoid ad hominem remark, please.



> By SPOOKY action at a distance, Einstein was referring to INSTANTANEOUS 
> action at a distance.


By “action at a distance” we have always mean here the spooky one, which are 
the one that Aspect experience imposes on any mono-universe theory. Everyone 
agreed on this (what is sometimes debated is that such spooky action at a 
distance exists in a many-universe view).



> In relativity and E, there is action at light speed, but not 
> instantaneously. This is action at a distance but not spooky because NOT 
> instantaneously. 


No one ever doubted this. You are the one coming up with “action at a distance” 
being the usual local one, which introduced the confusion. We would not talk of 
action AT a distance, if they were not instantaneous. That is what all Bell’s 
inequality violation or not is all about.

Bruno




> AG 
> 
> Relativity, and I would say Everett (non collapse) saves physics from action 
> at a distance. Even Newton knew quickly that his law of gravitation was 
> dubious, because it evolves action at a distance. SR and GR don’t, nor, Imo, 
> the relative state of QM without collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton's gravity theory has instantaneous action at a distance.
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> It was modified in the form of GR, which allows for action at a distance at 
> the speed of light.
> 
> That is not what we call “action at a distance”. If the action take the speed 
> of light or below, it is a un unproblematic propagation, at a distance, only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical E allowed for fields and 

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2018, at 15:56, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Bruno Marchal >
>>> On 4 May 2018, at 01:03, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually, this is the basis of MWI -- everything in physics is based on 
>>> unitary transformations. The Schrödinger equation can be derived by 
>>> assuming time evolution is unitary. So, in the wider context, everything, 
>>> even decoherence into the wider universe, is reversible, in the sense that 
>>> there is a unitary transformation that, when applied to any final state, 
>>> restores the initial state -- just take the unitary operator that describes 
>>> the time evolution, say U, and then take its inverse, U^{-1}.
>>> 
>>> The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
>>> multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
>>> worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the linearity 
>>> of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary transformations is 
>>> perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible in principle in the 
>>> one world we find ourselves to inhabit.
>>> 
>>> So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, since 
>>> it has to communicate with the real world.
>> 
>> OK. But that is the same with any quantum computer. Are you saying that 
>> quantum computing is not possible in practice?
> 
> No, quantum computing should be possible with sufficient protection against 
> decoherence.
> 
>> There are quantum algorithm capable of “fighting by quantum error 
>> procedures” the effect of decoherence. Imo, the Deutsch experiment is as 
>> much possible as a working quantum computer. I am pretty sure this is 
>> technologically possible, although plausibly not even in a near future, but 
>> soon after :)
> 
> The problem with Deutsch's thought experiment is that everything takes place 
> within the quantum computer, so no real measurement has ever been made. 
> Measurement involves decoherence and the effectively permanent splitting of 
> branches. No quantum computer can work in such circumstances. Calling the 
> unmeasured elements of a superposition "worlds" as Deutsch does, equivocates 
> on the orthogonality inherent in an operational concept of a "world". If 
> elements of a superposition can interfere, they are not separate worlds. 
> Deutsch's idea is sunk by the "preferred basis" problem. It is only 
> decoherence into the external world that can fix the basis (by einselection).

I agree with all what you say. Everett convinced me of the higher plausibility 
of MW only when I realise that the relative results of local measurements do 
not depend on the choice of the basis. Deutsch notion of world is too much 
naive (and does not make already sense only with computationalism).

Bruno


> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: time arrow, measurement, superposition

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 May 2018, at 22:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:03:10 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>> Here below a point  made by Asher Peres.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern 
>> between the cat alive and the cat dead.
>> 
>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the 
>> state
>> 
>> ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]
>> 
>> would be meaningful.
>> 
>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble 
>> of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on 
>> state ψ.
>> 
>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.
>> 
>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.
>> 
>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.
>> 
>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to 
>> construct the ψ-measuring machine.
>> 
>> 
>> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you 
>> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG 
> 
> 
> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, and 
> the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using the 
> exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to build 
> the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device,
> 
> Why do we need such a measuring device to solve the cat paradox?

There is not cat “paradox”. Just people who dislike the idea that a cat can be 
in a alive+dead macroscopic state. 

We need the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, not to solve the cat 
“paradox”, but to resuscitate the cat.




> What is it supposed to be measuring? What superposition? AG 

We start of alive + dead, look at the cat and see it dead, then work in the 
dead_alive/dead-alive base, and do a measurement in that base, and we can 
rescutitate the cat, exactly like in the quantum description of an 
interferometer. 

The only problem is in building the the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring 
device. That is not feasible, and plausibly never feasible, due to the 
impossibility to isolate the cat and the observer of the cat, until we have 
large scale quantum computers.







> but I do see how I can emulate it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing 
> machine. (Which is Turing emulate and so arithmetic emulates a quantum 
> universal dovetailer, BTW. But if it is the winner, that has to be justify 
> from number self-reference logic (as I have explained, or see my papers).
> 
> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot in 
> the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself directly by 
> a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to find yourself 
> “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!).
> 
> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM without 
> collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong somewhere.
> 
> You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the 
> additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem 
> oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to 
> justify it. AG
> 
> I see nothing in the SWE that implies, requires, or guarantees, that every 
> outcome that's possible, must occur.  AG


If they don’t occur, you will miss the interference patterns, simply.

Bruno




> 
> 
> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open to 
> generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is simpler 
> than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism,  used by Everett, entails a 
> theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are provably 
> emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality. 
> 
> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all computations, 
> modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential correctness.
> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person, and 
> a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks to 
> the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended 
> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal 
> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent 
> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable 
> notion of world.
> 
> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum of 
> the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know enough 
> of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine, and 
> computations, are arithmetical notion, definable 

Re: time arrow, measurement, superposition

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 May 2018, at 22:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:01:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 2 May 2018, at 15:51, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 1:31:51 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>> Here below a point  made by Asher Peres.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern 
>> between the cat alive and the cat dead.
>> 
>> If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the 
>> state
>> 
>> ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]
>> 
>> would be meaningful.
>> 
>> One could then resuscitate dead cats in the following way: Take an ensemble 
>> of dead cats and measure on each one of them the projection operator on 
>> state ψ.
>> 
>> In 50% of the cases, the state of the cat will become ψ.
>> 
>> Now measure whether the resulting cat in state ψ is alive or dead.
>> 
>> In 50% of the cases, it will turn out alive.
>> 
>> I did not say this is impossible, but only that I don’t know how to 
>> construct the ψ-measuring machine.
>> 
>> 
>> Is the "I" you or Ashe? I don't really follow this. If you have time, you 
>> can expound a bit on what he's trying to say. AG 
> 
> 
> Belinfante made the same argument. It is elementary quantum mechanics, and 
> the argument is just above, although you can presented it without using the 
> exponential. I have not time right now. Like Peres, I don’t see how to build 
> the {dead+alive, dead-alive} measuring device, but I do see how I can emulate 
> it with Deutsch quantum universal Turing machine. (Which is Turing emulate 
> and so arithmetic emulates a quantum universal dovetailer, BTW. But if it is 
> the winner, that has to be justify from number self-reference logic (as I 
> have explained, or see my papers).
> 
> There is no way to do that in practice, without either progressing a lot in 
> the art of isolation (of cat and poison) or by entangling oneself directly by 
> a quantum suicide technic (but here the chance might grow to find yourself 
> “elsewhere”, dreaming only having resuscitate the cat!).
> 
> I think Peres is not quite open to MW, but for me MW is just the QM without 
> collapse, and the collapse is only a speculation that QM is wrong somewhere.
> 
> You're assuming much more than QM without collapse. You've added the 
> additional hypothesis that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. You seem 
> oblivious to this additional assumption, and consequently make no effort to 
> justify it. AG

Assuming the SWE is enough. That is why the founders invented the collapse 
postulate, to avoid the “parallel” branches (which are more like 
quasi-perpendicular states).

But the collapse is non linear, non unitary, and is the one in need to be 
justified, and that he’s been done by Everett.

The only problem is that Everett use mechanism, and this means we have to 
extract the SWE from all computations and self-reference, but this works well, 
so ...

Bruno



> 
> Grayson, this list is born from people appreciating Everett MW, and open to 
> generalisation of it, “everything” means that we bet the whole is simpler 
> than any of its particulars. Indexical Mechanism,  used by Everett, entails a 
> theory of all computations (which, with Church Turing thesis) are provably 
> emulated in virtue of a tiny fragment of the arithmetical reality. 
> 
> This adds a new problem: justifying the wave from a sum on all computations, 
> modalised by the constraints imposed by self-referential correctness.
> It actually works retrieving an intuitionist logic for the first person, and 
> a quantum logic for what it can observed. The advantage is that, thanks to 
> the truth/assertable distinction, we get both quanta and their extended 
> qualia (which obeys also type of quantum logic). In both the universal 
> wave/matrix, and in any universal machinery can look at the consistent 
> histories gluing dreams into realties, conveying, or not toward reasonable 
> notion of world.
> 
> So the SWE/Dirac/DeWitt-Wheeler equation must be retrieved from the sum of 
> the relative possibilities of the universal machine. You need to know enough 
> of computer science to know that the notion of universal machine, and 
> computations, are arithmetical notion, definable entirely in the language of 
> first order arithmetic.
> 
> Many take granted a primitive or primary physical universe or multiverse, but 
> what can be proved is the existence of a multi-dream in arithmetic, with laws 
> explaining how the sharable first person plural dreams can converge to local 
> appearance of “universe”. 
> 
> I have no clue, nor even opinion if mechanism is true, but it is a fact that 
> the universal machine, in the sense of Turing, have a quite surprising 
> theology, in the sense of the Neoplatonists. So we can test the intuitive 
> consequences (due to our embedding in infinitely many computations) and the 
> formal consequences, like the appearances of a 

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 May 2018, at 10:58, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> The Lobian Machines arise from a universe, infinite in time and extent.

They arise of the semi-computable part of the arithmetical reality (or anything 
Turing equivalent). 

A physical universe, like any notion of God, cannot make a computations felt as 
more realm or less real than another, without contradicting mechanism.




> From afar Ludwig Boltzmann looks down and laughs at the puny mortals 
> attempting to comprehend his greatness. Hugh Everett the 3rd claps Boltzmann 
> on the back and buys him a drink! The AI Tin Man says, "If I only had a 
> Brain, it would be like Boltzmanns. 

In arithmetic, this is quasi-solved. The Boltzman brains, and aberrant 
histories have plausibly the measure zero, although this is not yet entirely 
proved, to be sure, but if disproved, then mechanism is refuted, and that has 
not yet been done too!

Bruno




> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, May 5, 2018 4:23 am
> Subject: Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator
> 
> 
> On 4 May 2018, at 01:26, Quentin Anciaux  > wrote:
> 
> Again the perfect example of I lost so I dodge…
> 
> Exactly. John Clark could not have provided a better illustration, indeed.
> 
> I consider a disagreement as a courtesy to pursue a conversation.
> 
> I consider mockery, insult and rhetorical dodging as “I have no argument, you 
> won the point”.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le jeu. 3 mai 2018 21:36, John Clark  > a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​ You say the diary solves the referent issue because its clear the man 
> in Helsinki wrote it and he wrote it yesterday, but in one variation of the 
> thought experiment there is nobody in Helsinki today, there are people in 
> Moscow and Washington who vividly remember writing that diary but what one 
> and only one really did?
> 
> ​> ​ We assume Mechanism, so the answer is simply both, from the third person 
> point of view, and only one, for each of the first person point of view 
> obtained.
> 
> ​Counter argument #11​42
> 
> ​>>​ What did the correct answer to the question turn out to be?
> 
> ​>​ The question was the prediction of the next experience. The correct 
> answer, remaining correc,t through the experience was the prediction “I will 
> feel either W or M”, written “W v M”, keeping in mind that the question 
> concerned the experience at the first person.
> 
> So it is “W v M”.
> 
> ​Counter argument #926​  
> 
> ​>>​ Who wrote the diary?
> 
> ​> ​ The candidate of the experience.
> 
> ​And who is the ​  candidate of the experience ​? The guy who wrote the diary 
> of course.​
>  
> ​>> ​ Is the one and only one referent to the personal pronoun “I” in the 
> question the Moscow man or the Washington man?
> 
> ​> ​ Anyone. We keep only the prediction assessed by all of them. In the big 
> number iteration of that experience, the correct prediction is “white noise”.
> 
> ​Yes that's what I thought, hot air and a big noise.​
> 
> ​>> ​ It can’t be the Helsinki man because today there is no Helsinki man.
> 
> ​> ​ That contradicts the local personal identity definition that you have 
> agreed very often upon,
> 
> ​An oldie but a goodie, counter agreement #22​
> 
> ​John K Clark​  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like 
>> structure?  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much 
>> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) 
>> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, 
>> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not 
>> so much at ease).
>> 
>> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
>> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.
> 
> If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic with 
> the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain just here. 
> With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality (arithmetic for 
> example), and explain all non classical logics by the constraints of 
> self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical logics” non 
> classical.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Classicality may simply be an approximation.

In physics? Yes, that is a theorem in the classical mechanist theory. But the 
mathematical notion of computation is classical, and with mechanism, we cannot 
assume a non classical physical reality/appearance. We must deduce it from the 
computations (which are executed in arithmetic, as the logicians know since a 
century).
You seem to assume a physical reality, but this cannot work with Mechanism.




> It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep questions 
> on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical. If 
> quantum and classical realities are separate and equal aspects of the world, 
> such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with objective loss of 
> quantum information.

Which for a computationalist would be like to assume some natural numbers do 
not exist. It makes no sense at all. You might need to read my papers for 
proofs of this, and have some knowledge in computability theory, notably to 
understand that computation is an arithmetical notion. I can give references.
The quantum is how the digital see itself from inside the digital. 
Note that by mechanism, I mean the hypothesis that the brain is Turing emulable 
(consciousness is preserved through a -digital brain transplant). It makes 
physics independent of the choice of the “ontology” as long as it is Turing 
universal, and that it has no induction axioms, nor infinity axioms. Note also 
that the physical universe becomes NOT Turing emulable, nor is consciousness 
(amazingly enough: I am aware this is counter-intuitive).

Bruno






> 
> 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 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.