Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 12 Jul 2018, at 14:09, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 12 Jul 2018, at 04:04, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


There are no up' or down' branches.


? (That contradicts directly what you just said). A up-branch is 
just a branch where Alice saw or would see “up”.


You were the one who introduce up-prime and down-prime branches. I 
maintain that there are only two branches on each and every 
measurement, an up-branch and a down-branch.


In which direction?


In the direction in which the measurement is made. One of your enduring 
mistakes is to confuse the rotational symmetry of the singlet state with 
the single basis corresponding to the direction in which the measurement 
will be made. Once a direction is chosen, the state can be represented 
as a superposition of up and down eigenvectors /in that direction/. 
Other directions are irrelevant to the measurement. The state is not in 
a superposition of eigenvectors of every possible orientation. Quantum 
mechanics does not have any such superposition. The state is a 
superposition of just two eigenvectors, although which eigenvectors 
depends on the direction chosen.




..

Each measurement splits a branch, but branches never meet or recombine.


Because they both measure in the same direction (not sure how they 
do that btw), but for Bell’s inequality, some measurement are not 
“orthogonal”. Partial fusion is in play, which forbids ti associate 
each personal experience with any definite Alice (Bob) in the branching.


Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. I am considering a series of N 
trials in which both Alice and Bob independently choose random magnet 
orientations. So if the relative angle is theta, the probabilities 
for combined results are:


Alice gets up: then Bob has  probability sin^2(theta/2) for up, and 
probability cos^2(theta/2) for down.


Alice gets down: then Bob has probability cos^2(theta/2) for up, and 
probability sin^2(theta/2) for down.


If theta = 0, then if Alice gets up then Bob down 100%.; Alice down 
then Bob up 100%.
If theta = 120 degrees, then if Alice gets up, then Bob gets up 75% 
probability, and down 25% probability.
And so on for other angles and combined results. It is these 
probabilities that are crucial for getting the correct correlations 
when Alice and Bob meet.


Now if you can get these correlations without the non-local knowledge 
of this relative angle, then you have a local explanation. But you 
will never be able to produce such a set of probabilities locally -- 
the relative angles are set at random: non-locally at space-like 
separations.


But the result of the measurement are determined by the singlet state. 
They just cannot known there local angles.


Of course they know their local angles -- they choose them! The point is 
that Alice does not know Bob's chosen angle when she makes her 
measurement, and neither does Bob know Alice's angle when he makes his 
measurement. The fact that the probabilities depend on the relative 
angle between these random non-local choices is the conundrum to be 
answered.



When they measure in non orthogonal “direction”, the probabilities 
depends, for all Alice-Bod couples, of that state, which is unknown to 
both of them.I am OK that it is non-local, but that does not entail 
that when Alice makes a measurement, she influence Bob’s outcome by a 
FTL influence. They just get aware locally of which sub partition they 
both belong.


That is just avoiding the issue. 'Sub-partition' as you use it here has 
no meaning. Alice and Bob both know what world they are in -- the world 
in which they got up that morning and had their breakfast. And they 
are in that same world when they later meet after a series of trials -- 
they cannot change worlds!



So the Alice that meets a Bob over coffee after the N trials is the 
Alice with one particular branching history.


Again, this begins to be too much ambiguous, if not non sensical for me.


This is the heart of the matter. If you don't understand this, then 
you don't understand how the correlations are formed.


From entanglement.


That is meaningless without further explication. The straightforward 
explication in quantum physics is that the probabilities for each 
outcome are determined by the non-local relative angle between their 
measurements. If you want a local account, you have to give it 
explicitly -- stop just waving your hands about and appealing to some 
'entanglement' magic.





The Bob she meets is necessarily in the same world,


At the moment of the meeting, yes. But that is a far cry to say that 
it is the “physical Bob” she started with, in the case of "non 
orthogonal measurements”. But OK, for this scenario.


We assume randomly non-orthogonal measurements. And neither Alice nor 
Bob can switch between branches,


? They don’t know whi

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

---  SCERIR;  IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG

Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an 
abstract entity that merely provides information about the system?

This is the question.

This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general, a possessed 
property unless it is measured.


-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jul 2018, at 03:01, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> ​​If you want to use Euclidean geometry or even the sort of 
>> non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used you've got to use standard arithmetic, 
>> but there are other ways. For example, in the 7-adic system the distance 
>> between 5 and 6 is smaller than the distance between 5 and 
>> 6; and 28814 is closer to 2 than 2 is to 3.
>> 
>> ​>​​>>​All Turing universal system would do. p-adic numbers presupposes 
>> elementary arithmetic.
>> 
>> ​>>​It would be equally true to say elementary arithmetic presupposes p-adic 
>> numbers, although humans were not smart enough to figure that out until 1897.
> 
> ​>​I doubt this. I am not sure you can define p-adic number without assuming 
> natural number.s If you can, show me.
> 
> The invention of the p-adic number system proved that the way your second 
> grade teacher taught you to perform subtraction and measure the distance 
> between 2 numbers is just one way it could be done. There are a infinity of 
> alternative ways to describe  the distance between numbers than the way we 
> usually use and they are just as logically self-consistent, but as distance 
> plays a key role in both space and time it follows that only one of those 
> infinity of ways is consistent with physical reality. Physics gives us the 
> only thing that is unique about it,

It does not. I mean, not formally. That is impossible as the physical reality 
is (at least) Turing complete.



> but because we live and think in a physical world

OK. But that does not make it primary.



> the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that we didn’t even 
> suspect there were other ways until a century ago.


Either your p-adic system is Turing universal, and then you can take it as the 
primary theory, or it is not. Theology, including physics, is independent of 
the choice of the primitive element or theory.




> 
> ​> ​Non standard model of arithmetic are also consistent with the laws of 
> physics.
>  
> So on a football field if the 2 yard line was closer to the 28814 yard line 
> than the 2 yard line was to the 3 yard line the game would not in anyway be 
> changed? I don’t think so, in the physical world its harder to go from 2 to 
> 28814 than 2 to 3, but in Plato’s heaven of pure numbers one is as easy as 
> another. And that’s why p-adic numbers are not taught in the second grade.

I was talking of non standard theory of the natural number.




>  
> ​>>​You can not point to one single example of a non-physical computation. 
> Not one.
>  
> ​>​Here is one:
> s(0) +s(0)
> s(s(0) + 0)
> s(s(0))
> 
> Here is another one:
> 
> SB(S(K(SM))K)AB
> Bx((S(K(SM)K)A)B
> A(S(K(SM))KAB)
> A(K(SM)A(KA)B)
> A(SM(KA)B)
> A(MB)(KAB)
> A(BBA)
> 
> I just asked both of your examples of ASCII sequences to add 1+1 but I 
> haven't heard even a incorrect answer from either, so far all I hear is a 
> deafening silence but if I ever do hear anything from  either of them I shall 
> inform Intel immediately. 

Too late. Intel exist because they were aware of this. The physical computer is 
born from the physical implementation of the non physical computer discovered 
by the mathematicians.




> 
> 
> ​>>​It's so ubiquitous there is no choice but to assume matter, otherwise you 
> couldn't read a book because that is made of matter, you couldn't even think 
> because your brain is made of matter.
> 
> ​>​Nobody doubt Matter. But that does not make it primary, which is the 
> debated point.
> 
> ​So you concede that primary or not matter is needed to think. ​


For humans, when alive. Yes. In fact, all universal machine are confronted to 
matter appearances, and that can be proved in arithmetic.



> 
> ​>>​Heaven is not made of matter and neither is the Luminiferous Aether but 
> our physical world is indifferent to the existence or non-existence of them, 
> in other words physics can't prove they don't exist but it can prove the idea 
> is silly. 
> 
> 
> ​>​Physics is not concerned with fundamental existence. Metaphysics is.
> Can you name one advancement that Metaphysics has made in the last thousand 
> years to world knowledge?
> 
> 


The very existence of physics, mathematics, comes from metaphysical 
questioning. Unfortunately, we have chosen the simplest, but wrong, 
metaphysical assumption. Doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude just 
means being able to see when something is wrong, and to make the change.




> ​ I can't.​
> 
>  
> ​>​Confusing physics and metaphysics is the “error" of Aristotle, which​.​
> 
> ​Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,​​Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,​Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks…..


They have discovered the whole science. But the christians, and the “strong 
atheists” deny the evidence, like always with the pseudo-religious people.




>> ​>​>>​ ​He is uncertain about where he will find itself after the 

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Jul 2018, at 14:09, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>>> On 12 Jul 2018, at 04:04, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> There are no up' or down' branches.
>> 
>> 
>> ? (That contradicts directly what you just said). A up-branch is just a 
>> branch where Alice saw or would see “up”.
> 
> You were the one who introduce up-prime and down-prime branches. I maintain 
> that there are only two branches on each and every measurement, an up-branch 
> and a down-branch.

In which direction?





> 
> ..
>>> Each measurement splits a branch, but branches never meet or recombine.
>> 
>> Because they both measure in the same direction (not sure how they do that 
>> btw), but for Bell’s inequality, some measurement are not “orthogonal”. 
>> Partial fusion is in play, which forbids ti associate each personal 
>> experience with any definite Alice (Bob) in the branching.
> 
> Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. I am considering a series of N trials 
> in which both Alice and Bob independently choose random magnet orientations. 
> So if the relative angle is theta, the probabilities for combined results are:
> 
> Alice gets up: then Bob has  probability sin^2(theta/2) for up, and 
> probability cos^2(theta/2) for down.
> 
> Alice gets down: then Bob has probability cos^2(theta/2) for up, and 
> probability sin^2(theta/2) for down.
> 
> If theta = 0, then if Alice gets up then Bob down 100%.; Alice down then Bob 
> up 100%.
> If theta = 120 degrees, then if Alice gets up, then Bob gets up 75% 
> probability, and down 25% probability.
> And so on for other angles and combined results. It is these probabilities 
> that are crucial for getting the correct correlations when Alice and Bob meet.
> 
> Now if you can get these correlations without the non-local knowledge of this 
> relative angle, then you have a local explanation. But you will never be able 
> to produce such a set of probabilities locally -- the relative angles are set 
> at random:  non-locally at space-like separations.

But the result of the measurement are determined by the singlet state. They 
just cannot known there local angles. When they measure in non orthogonal 
“direction”, the probabilities depends, for all Alice-Bod couples, of that 
state, which is unknown to both of them.I am OK that it is non-local, but that 
does not entail that when Alice makes a measurement, she influence Bob’s 
outcome by a FTL influence. They just get aware locally of which sub partition 
they both belong.





> 
> 
> 
>>> So the Alice that meets a Bob over coffee after the N trials is the Alice 
>>> with one particular branching history.
>> 
>> Again, this begins to be too much ambiguous, if not non sensical for me.
> 
> This is the heart of the matter. If you don't understand this, then you don't 
> understand how the correlations are formed.

>From entanglement.


> 
>>> The Bob she meets is necessarily in the same world,
>> 
>> At the moment of the meeting, yes. But that is a far cry to say that it is 
>> the “physical Bob” she started with, in the case of "non orthogonal 
>> measurements”. But OK, for this scenario.
> 
> We assume randomly non-orthogonal measurements. And neither Alice nor Bob can 
> switch between branches,

? They don’t know which branches they are in, right at the start. That is 
equivalent to belonging to many threads at once. Only later will they get more 
precision on this. The singlet state explains why they will observe the 
correlations when coming back together, without having to have any FTL. Once a 
superposition exist, it never disappear, and the correlations just reflect the 
type of interaction they did have to prepare the singlet state. 



> so the Bob that Alice meets has a set of measurement made all in this same 
> world -- the world in which Alice has made her measurements.

But there is an infinity of such world, where Alice find any possible results. 
Same for Bob. The results are correlated, because they are in the right 
corresponding relations, in all of them.
My feeling is that you introduce some collapse somewhere.




> In fact, the multi-branching tree forms a giant superposition, and we have 
> just singled out one component of this superposition. There is nothing at all 
> mysterious in this -- it is what physicists do all the time when they perform 
> calculations in momentum space -- on just one component of the superposition 
> that makes up a wave packet.

That makes sense.



> 
> 
>>> and he has a similar particular branching  history corresponding to just 
>>> one world. There are 2^N such meetings, each with unique branching 
>>> histories. The wonder of the singlet state is that for all these Alice/Bob 
>>> meetings, comparison of the data recorded in their lab books always gives 
>>> correlations that agree with quantum theory and violate the Bell 
>>> inequalities.
>> 
>> To get them, they need non orthogonal measurement,