Re: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:59:49 PM UTC, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 2:08 am, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:30:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:24:42 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 I still don't get it why some people prefer insulting other people and 
 their ideas instead of discussing or just stay with their own thoughts and 
 just say they disagree... What do you gain by saying they are insane, 
 stupid or whatever?

 It just looks to me childish. So stop doing this, stop writing in 70pt 
 size red fonts... It's a disfavor to your arguments. 

 Quentin 

>>>
>>> In fact, I DO think it's a mental illness. AG 
>>>
>>
>> It's not just wrong, but a gross dysfunction of judgment. Joe the Plumber 
>> goes into a lab or his closet, shoots a single electron at a slit, and by 
>> so doing creates uncountable universes, all with copies of himself, replete 
>> with his memories. Sure. AG
>>
>
> You may as well protest on the same basis that the universe can’t be so 
> wastefully large.
>

I don't see how that follows. Unfortunately, one cannot PROVE that the many 
worlds allegedly implied by the MWI interpretation don't exist, which is 
why I insist the True Believers are judgment impaired. Do you really 
believe that trivial actions by mere humans, accidents of evolution, can 
create entire universes? AG.  

> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

-- 
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: My final word on the MWI --

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 2:08 am,  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:30:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:24:42 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't get it why some people prefer insulting other people and
>>> their ideas instead of discussing or just stay with their own thoughts and
>>> just say they disagree... What do you gain by saying they are insane,
>>> stupid or whatever?
>>>
>>> It just looks to me childish. So stop doing this, stop writing in 70pt
>>> size red fonts... It's a disfavor to your arguments.
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>
>> In fact, I DO think it's a mental illness. AG
>>
>
> It's not just wrong, but a gross dysfunction of judgment. Joe the Plumber
> goes into a lab or his closet, shoots a single electron at a slit, and by
> so doing creates uncountable universes, all with copies of himself, replete
> with his memories. Sure. AG
>

You may as well protest on the same basis that the universe can’t be so
wastefully large.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 5:19:00 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 13:06, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>
>
>
> That was like the final word of the Church about Giordano Bruno, who dared 
> to suggest there might be other planets, before burning it at the stake.
>

No, not at all. I don't deny the possible existence of multiple universes. 
What I DO deny is that they're implied by the M

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 5:19:00 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 13:06, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>
>
>
> That was like the final word of the Church about Giordano Bruno, who dared 
> to suggest there might be other planets, before burning it at the stake.
>

*No, not at all. I don't deny the possible existence of multiple universes. 
What I DO deny is that they're implied by the MWI. AG* 

>
> You worry me a little bit. 
>
> Anyway, closing discussion or using insult means you are not really 
> interested in searching to understand, but more in imposing some 
> religion(conception of reality) to others.
>


*Problem is that you insist on discussing collapse, rather than my analysis 
of what superposition means, that is, its interpretation. The two issues 
are separable. But at least you're willing to discuss the issues unlike 
other gurus who populate this list.AG *

>
> It is sad, as we might agree eventually. 
>
> The universal machine might say that the public assertion that there is 
> even just *one* world (or one god) is already a form of insanity indeed. 
> Just many dreams, maybe. But I guesss you will not like that so much.
>
> Science is just attempts to find theories which explain as much as 
> possible. There is just no final word. Any assertive public certainty is 
> (plausibly) a symptom of lie, or manipulation or insanity. Science is a 
> voyage from doubts to doubts.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> WI. AG 

> You worry me a little bit. 
>
> Anyway, closing discussion or using insult means you are not really 
> interested in searching to understand, but more in imposing some 
> religion(conception of reality) to others.
>
> It is sad, as we might agree eventually. 
>
> The universal machine might say that the public assertion that there is 
> even just *one* world (or one god) is already a form of insanity indeed. 
> Just many dreams, maybe. But I guesss you will not like that so much.
>
> Science is just attempts to find theories which explain as much as 
> possible. There is just no final word. Any assertive public certainty is 
> (plausibly) a symptom of lie, or manipulation or insanity. Science is a 
> voyage from doubts to doubts.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Interesting-sounds like it may, in theory open up hypothetically, a boost to 
hypercomputing. Maybe something that could take better advantage of quantum 
computing. Thanks!



-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?







On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Yielding


(Here comes the awful question)


The knowledge of our Diophantine-connected existence, does what for us? 
Implications??





Provides a TOE that assumes no more than Integers and their relations.


Possibly permits the derivation of all physical laws purely from number theory.


Jason
 



-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 

Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?



Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute simplest and 
with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure mathematical truth concerning 
integers.  You don't need set theory, or reals, or machines with infinite 
tapes. You just need a single equation, which needs math no more advanced than 
whats taught in elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.


Jason



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:15 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Very well, but, why this class of equation? Why not some ther branch of 
mathematics? Facetiously, what not a toaster-oven, or a Hafnium, or Chloride 
atom? What is innate about Diophantine, that yields such awe? Does it propagate 
exponentially? Does it yield new information? 




-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?



There is a diophantine equation whose solutions correspond to every possible 
execution of every halting program.  Just as a simple equation defines/creates 
all the richness of the Mandlebrot set, this simple equation defines/creates 
all the richness of computable first-person experience.  So in a certain sense 
you could say we live within such an equation.


Jason  



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

navigation

Jump to search



Finding all right triangles with integer side-lengths is equivalent to solving 
the Diophantine equation a2 + b2 = c2.

In mathematics, a Diophantine equation is a polynomial equation, usually in two 
or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutionsare sought or studied (an 
integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). 
A linear Diophantine equationequates the sum of two or more monomials, each of 
degree 1 in one of the variables, to a constant. An exponential Diophantine 
equation is one in which exponents on terms can be unknowns.


**I'd guess no-based on the above description**





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 21 Jul 2018, at 18:02, John Clark  wrote:



On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:


>> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by 
>> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you 
>> really want to go with that definition?  

> Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby, what 
> is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.
Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important thing 
is that they be used consistently  
> So we have:
"Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth
"Abby-1" - The Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby-2" - The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby" - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1, 
Abby-2)
 
After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". Abby-1 is 
just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is just Abby plus 
something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are Abby but Abby-1 is 
not Abby-2.



Yes, we agree on this since day one. But to answer to the step-3 question, we 
must keep in mind that it refers to the first person self lived by, obviously 
with computationalism, both copies. 











>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the duplication. 
>> Do you disagree?
 

> No, we can go with that.




Indeed.










 
OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply no 
getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different things at 
exactly the same time. 






That is the 3-1 description, but that does not answer the question about the 
1-description, as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first 
person perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective. 











Whenever I 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 4:59:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> *I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why 
> a classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies 
> FTL,*
>
>
> You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to 
> me. Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local 
> perturbation which “contagiates" its local neighbours.
>



*How can the amplitude get to infinity in all directions along a plane, 
unless, when created, there is instantaneous propagation? AG** |and you 
bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not discussing it 
in this context. *

>
>
> Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or 
> not as part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about 
> the nature of the superposition.
>

*That's really another issue, obviously an important issue, but I was not 
discussing it in the context of my critique of superposition. AG *

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> *Let's end this discussion. AG*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. A*G
>>
>>
>> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
>> superposition as physical reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>>>
>>> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we 
>>> are using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
>>> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
>>> reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
>>> linearity.
>>>
>>> Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument 
>>> measure. All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those 
>>> are real, we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is 
>>> exploited in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many 
>>> computations at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual 
>>> result, we can test global information on all results, like "are they all 
>>> the same or different? or question of parity of results, etc. 
>>>
>>> The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse 
>>> taken seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A 
>>> world can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, 
>>> but it is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have 
>>> good reason to disbelieve such worlds). 
>>>
>>> The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to 
>>> calculate probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not 
>>> work. Nature confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable 
>>> difference between mixed state and superposition. We can add hidden 
>>> variable, or Bohm’s Guiding particles Potential, but this has been shown to 
>>> lead to FTL (even instantaneous) influence(*) and other magic things or to 
>>> many-worlds.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey 
>>> Everett quantum mechanics, i.e. that some collapse occurs somewhere, 
>>> instantaneously.
>>>
>>
>> *I never discussed collapse, one way or another. I just claim that there 
>> is apparently no justification for the Copenhagen(?) INTERPRETATION of 
>> superposition in QM. *
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a new axiom in the theory, before leading to any interpretation. I 
>> agree with you, the collapse is just a coquetry added to avoid being 
>> oneself and the (local) physical reality multiplied. But there is no 
>> experimental evidence for such a collapse, and it entails FTL, 
>> indeterminacy. With the SWE without collapse, the probabilities come only 
>> from the impossibility to know which branch of the universal wave we are 
>> in, like with mechanism we cannot know which computations support us. QM 
>> confirms Mechanism here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *I have asked for the justification many times, but no takers. *
>>
>>
>> In this list, few people believe in a collapse.
>>
>>
>>
>> *I don't think they can justify it. Of course, generally, postulates are 
>> not amenable to justification, but 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

All you've managed to demonstrate below is that computations that don't
happen in this physicals universe can't affect this universe. You've done
*zero* so far to show that computations can't occur outside this physical
universe.  Actually, you agreed that they could at one point in this thread.

Jason

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:03 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *>you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform
>> computations, because those are the only computations you have seen.*
>>
>
> Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the
> physical sort, and nobody has even made a hypothesis about how a
> non-physical calculation might work nor explain how it would only produce
> correct answers and not incorrect ones. The existence of unicorns is far
> more plausible than the existence of non-physical calculations.
>
> *>You are presuming many things, all of which are quite dubious. For
>> example, that:*
>> *1. That Intel has discovered everything that is physically possible.*
>>
> *2. Intel has discovered everything in reality.*
>>
>
> I do presume that Intel has not discovered something that is physically
> impossible.
>
>
>> *>3. That Intel has publicly disclosed everything it knows.*
>>
>
> If Intel had discovered how to make non-physical computations I am quite
> certain we would have heard about it and the company would not continue to
> build $10,000,000,000 Silicon chip fabrication plants.
>
>
>> *4. That Intel could build devices that can access the results of
>> computations made in other realities/realms/universes.*
>>
>
> No, I presume that Intel, could NOT access the results of non-physical
> computations made in other realities, or to say the same thing in different
> words I presume that  non-physical computations don't work worth a damn.
>
>
>> *5. That Intel could profitably build devices*
>>
> Build? Device? It's non-physical so there is nothing to build and there is
> no device. As for profitability, you can't do much better  than  zero
> manufacturing costs.
>
>> *>1. So what is the difference between a platonic computation and one
>> that occurs physically in a physical universe that is inaccessible to us?*
>>
>
> One works for us and one doesn't. One we know certainly exists and the
> other we will never know for certain if it does or not, although we will
> know that if it does exist the calculation was done physically.
>
>
> *>>>So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be
 a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?*

>>>
>>> >>
>>> The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the
>>> universe; how could it be simple,
>>>
>>
>> *>Who said it was simple?*
>>
>  You did, you said "Change is an illusion". If a 3-D object does not
> change along any of its 3 spacial dimensions then it is very
> simple spatially, if it is static and will stay that way for eternity then
> the 4-D space-time object is also very simple. If all 4 dimensions
> continue to infinity then that infinite object would be the ultimate in
> simplicity, the only thing that might rival it in that regard would be
> nothing, and the two would be related. The best definition of "nothing" I
> know of is infinite unbounded homogeneity
>
>  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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute
 > simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure
 > mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set theory,
 or
 > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single
 > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in
 > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.

 It might be interesting except that it executes all possible
 algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.

 Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world
 and only this world that would be something.

>>>
>>> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to
>>> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each
>>> individual being within that everything should also be able to see
>>> everything.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really
>>> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth")  you
>>> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able to
>>> see all those novels play out.
>>>
>>
>> If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you
>> shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then you
>> can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism of
>> the theory.
>>
>>
>> However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it.
>>
>
> You could, but Robinson arithmetic is fairly coherent, in my opinion.
>
>
> Indeed. Robinso Arithmetic, or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinator theory proves
> the existence of a quantum universal dovetailer. Of course that does not
> solve the mind-body problem, we have still to extract it from
> self-reference to distinguish qualia and quanta.
>
> If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and
> Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike
> Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh
> in my head because I have just finished a thorough course on this.
> Combinators are also interesting to explain what is a computation and for
> differentiating different sorts of computation, including already sort of
> “physical computation”. Yet it would be treachery to use this directly. To
> distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract
> them from Löb’s formula, and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a
> summary here.
>
>
I would be very interested in this. I am still making my way through "To
Mock a Mockingbird".  Thanks!

Jason

-- 
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?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch > wrote:




On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be
the absolute
> simplest and with the least assumptions. It comes
from pure
> mathematical truth concerning integers. You don't
need set theory, or
> reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need
a single
> equation, which needs math no more advanced than
whats taught in
> elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could
assume less.

It might be interesting except that it executes all
possible
algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.

Now if you would find the diophantine equations that
compute this world
and only this world that would be something.


Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything
predicted to exist by all computations, you would need to
show why you expect each individual being within that
everything should also be able to see everything.


So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever
written really happened, but on a different planets (many
also called "Earth")  you couldn't doubt that unless you
could show that you should have been able to see all those
novels play out.


If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains
why you shouldn't expect to see everything even though
everything exists, then you can't use your inability to see
everything that exists as a criticism of the theory.


However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to
reject it.


You could, but Robinson arithmetic is fairly coherent, in my opinion.


Indeed. Robinso Arithmetic, or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinator theory 
proves the existence of a quantum universal dovetailer. Of course that 
does not solve the mind-body problem, we have still to extract it from 
self-reference to distinguish qualia and quanta.


What does that have to do with "everything exists", which is not only 
incoherent, but it is empirically false?  There is this myth that 
"everything exists" or "everything happens" is a consequence of quantum 
mechanics and it therefore proved by physics.  But quantum mechanics 
predicts probability(x)=0 for many values of x, c.f. arXiv:0702121


Brent




If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x 
and Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic 
(unlike Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all 
this fresh in my head because I have just finished a thorough course 
on this. Combinators are also interesting to explain what is a 
computation and for differentiating different sorts of computation, 
including already sort of “physical computation”. Yet it would be 
treachery to use this directly. To distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 
quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract them from Löb’s formula, 
and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a summary here.


Bruno





Jason

--
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.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> In a world that contains first person duplicating machines there is no
>> such thing as *THE* first person.
>
>
> *>That would contradict computationalism immediately, because it would
> mean that the first person in M has disappeared*
>

So in Brunomath if C is consciousness and C is duplicated then 2*C=0. Are
you sure you're a mathematician?


> >
> or is a zombie,
>

Or a vampire or a werwolf or a fire breathing dragon. Isn't it time for you
to start babbling about telepathy?

>
> *You seem to remain unable to put yourself in any possible continuation.*
>
You remain unable to put yourself in more than one continuation if **YOU*
have been copied in a *YOU* duplicating machine.*


> >
> *You seem to deny that in W, the guy feel to be only in W, and is aware he
> could not have predicted that outcome,*
>

Before the Helsinki was copied Mr. He couldn't have predicted the
outcome or dome anything else for that matter because back then Mr. He did
not exist.

>>
>> I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey", why
>> can't you?
>
>
> *>I can, but*
> [...]
>

Ah yes, the all important "but". It is said it is wise to ignore everything
a politician says before "but", and the same thing applies to you.

*>we have to distinguish the 1p and the 3p.*
>

Then do so! Give me a definition of "Abbey" that is as precise and
logically consistent as the one I gave. I don't think you can do it.


> >
> *Abbey is indeed surviving in both W and M,*
>
That statement will remain neither true nor false until you give us
a precise and logically consistent definition of "Abbey" and don't change
it from one paragraph to the next. I can do it why can't you?


> *>We have agreed on all name and pronoun this time. *
>

Then what did we agree that "Abbey" means??


> >
>>> >>
>>> *as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first person
>>> perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective.*
>>
>>
>> >>
>> That depends entirely on who the person in the first person perspective
>> you keep talking about is!
>
> *>All of them*
>
If all of them are "Abbey" then "Abbey" saw 2 cities at the same time, but
I don't think that's what you really mean by "Abbey", I don't think you
know what you mean by "Abbey". Prove me wrong, give me a precise logically
consistent definition of "Abbey" and let me hold you to it from one
paragraph to the next and from one post to the next.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

*>you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform
> computations, because those are the only computations you have seen.*
>

Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the
physical sort, and nobody has even made a hypothesis about how a
non-physical calculation might work nor explain how it would only produce
correct answers and not incorrect ones. The existence of unicorns is far
more plausible than the existence of non-physical calculations.

*>You are presuming many things, all of which are quite dubious. For
> example, that:*
> *1. That Intel has discovered everything that is physically possible.*
>
*2. Intel has discovered everything in reality.*
>

I do presume that Intel has not discovered something that is physically
impossible.


> *>3. That Intel has publicly disclosed everything it knows.*
>

If Intel had discovered how to make non-physical computations I am quite
certain we would have heard about it and the company would not continue to
build $10,000,000,000 Silicon chip fabrication plants.


> *4. That Intel could build devices that can access the results of
> computations made in other realities/realms/universes.*
>

No, I presume that Intel, could NOT access the results of non-physical
computations made in other realities, or to say the same thing in different
words I presume that  non-physical computations don't work worth a damn.


> *5. That Intel could profitably build devices*
>
Build? Device? It's non-physical so there is nothing to build and there is
no device. As for profitability, you can't do much better  than  zero
manufacturing costs.

> *>1. So what is the difference between a platonic computation and one that
> occurs physically in a physical universe that is inaccessible to us?*
>

One works for us and one doesn't. One we know certainly exists and the
other we will never know for certain if it does or not, although we will
know that if it does exist the calculation was done physically.


*>>>So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be
>>> a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?*
>>>
>>
>> >>
>> The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the
>> universe; how could it be simple,
>>
>
> *>Who said it was simple?*
>
 You did, you said "Change is an illusion". If a 3-D object does not change
along any of its 3 spacial dimensions then it is very simple spatially, if
it is static and will stay that way for eternity then the 4-D space-time
object is also very simple. If all 4 dimensions continue to infinity then
that infinite object would be the ultimate in simplicity, the only thing
that might rival it in that regard would be nothing, and the two would be
related. The best definition of "nothing" I know of is infinite unbounded
homogeneity

 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: My final word on the MWI --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 13:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG


That was like the final word of the Church about Giordano Bruno, who dared to 
suggest there might be other planets, before burning it at the stake.

You worry me a little bit. 

Anyway, closing discussion or using insult means you are not really interested 
in searching to understand, but more in imposing some religion(conception of 
reality) to others.

It is sad, as we might agree eventually. 

The universal machine might say that the public assertion that there is even 
just *one* world (or one god) is already a form of insanity indeed. Just many 
dreams, maybe. But I guesss you will not like that so much.

Science is just attempts to find theories which explain as much as possible. 
There is just no final word. Any assertive public certainty is (plausibly) a 
symptom of lie, or manipulation or insanity. Science is a voyage from doubts to 
doubts.

Bruno


> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 09:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think this discussion is a waste of time. You can't even understand why a 
> classical wave which extends to infinity along an infinite plane implies FTL,


You are right. I can’t understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. 
Wave, in physics, are the paragon of locality. It is a local perturbation which 
“contagiates" its local neighbours.



> and you bring in collapse at every opportunity, even though I am not 
> discussing it in this context.


Were talking between QM. We must decide if we put the collapse axiom or not as 
part of the theory. That’s the key point in all the discussion about the nature 
of the superposition.

Bruno




> Let's end this discussion. AG











>> Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
>> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf 
>> is complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
>> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
>> manifests mathematically by the existence of cross terms. AG
> 
> Indeed, and the cross term invites us to take Feynman many path, or Dirac 
> superposition as physical reality.
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
>> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
>> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
>> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
>> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
>> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
>> 
>> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
>> using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the 
>> collapse postulate. Without the collapse postulate, no superposition ever 
>> reducse into a singular state projection. That contradicts the quantum 
>> linearity.
>> 
>> Being a pure state like “up” is always relative to an instrument measure. 
>> All state are superposition when develop in other bases, and those are real, 
>> we can test them. A state like up is really up’ + down’. That is exploited 
>> in quantum computing, where some algorithm can superposed many computations 
>> at once, and, despite we cannot observe each individual result, we can test 
>> global information on all results, like "are they all the same or different? 
>> or question of parity of results, etc. 
>> 
>> The so called “many-world” interpretation is just QM-without-collapse taken 
>> seriously. No need to add some metaphysical world(s) here or there. A world 
>> can be defined by just any completion of a state that we can measure, but it 
>> is an open problem if that exists (except with mechanism: we have good 
>> reason to disbelieve such worlds). 
>> 
>> The instrumentalist idea that the superposition are only tools to calculate 
>> probabilities was inspiring a long time ago, but it does not work. Nature 
>> confirms their physicalness, notably by testing the observable difference 
>> between mixed state and superposition. We can add hidden variable, or Bohm’s 
>> Guiding particles Potential, but this has been shown to lead to FTL (even 
>> instantaneous) influence(*) and other magic things or to many-worlds.
>> 
>> In my opinion, you are just saying that the physical reality do not obey 
>> Everett quantum mechanics, i.e. that some collapse occurs somewhere, 
>> instantaneously.
>> 
>> I never discussed collapse, one way or another. I just claim that there is 
>> apparently no justification for the Copenhagen(?) INTERPRETATION of 
>> superposition in QM.
> 
> 
> It is a new axiom in the theory, before leading to any interpretation. I 
> agree with you, the collapse is just a coquetry added to avoid being oneself 
> and the (local) physical reality multiplied. But there is no experimental 
> evidence for such a collapse, and it entails FTL, indeterminacy. With the SWE 
> without collapse, the probabilities come only from the impossibility to know 
> which branch of the universal wave we are in, like with mechanism we cannot 
> know which computations support us. QM confirms Mechanism here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I have asked for the justification many times, but no takers.
> 
> In this list, few people believe in a collapse.
> 
> 
> 
>> I don't think they can justify it. Of course, generally, postulates are not 
>> amenable to justification, but in the case of superposition, the 
>> interpretation I object to has a unique property; it's never applied in a 
>> calculation!
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I can’t explain neither the two slits, nor the working 
> of an interferometer, nor the hydrogen atom, nor anything, without the 
> superposition principle. The collapse is never used, but the superposition is 
> just a consequence of the fact that state are represented by wave, or by 
> “vector” in a Hilbert space 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:30:11 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:24:42 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> I still don't get it why some people prefer insulting other people and 
>> their ideas instead of discussing or just stay with their own thoughts and 
>> just say they disagree... What do you gain by saying they are insane, 
>> stupid or whatever?
>>
>> It just looks to me childish. So stop doing this, stop writing in 70pt 
>> size red fonts... It's a disfavor to your arguments. 
>>
>> Quentin 
>>
>
> In fact, I DO think it's a mental illness. AG 
>

It's not just wrong, but a gross dysfunction of judgment. Joe the Plumber 
goes into a lab or his closet, shoots a single electron at a slit, and by 
so doing creates uncountable universes, all with copies of himself, replete 
with his memories. Sure. AG

>
>> Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 à 13:06,  a écrit :
>>
>>> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 11:24:42 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> I still don't get it why some people prefer insulting other people and 
> their ideas instead of discussing or just stay with their own thoughts and 
> just say they disagree... What do you gain by saying they are insane, 
> stupid or whatever?
>
> It just looks to me childish. So stop doing this, stop writing in 70pt 
> size red fonts... It's a disfavor to your arguments. 
>
> Quentin 
>

In fact, I DO think it's a mental illness. AG 

>
> Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 à 13:06, > a 
> écrit :
>
>> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

I still don't get it why some people prefer insulting other people and
their ideas instead of discussing or just stay with their own thoughts and
just say they disagree... What do you gain by saying they are insane,
stupid or whatever?

It just looks to me childish. So stop doing this, stop writing in 70pt size
red fonts... It's a disfavor to your arguments.

Quentin

Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 à 13:06,  a écrit :

> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>
> --
> 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.

My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

--  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG

-- 
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: Proof; Eigenfunctions having different eigenvalues are orthogonal

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:14:29 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 7:29:30 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> Different eigenstates with the same eigenvalues are degenerate. This 
>>> degeneracy can be split however if you turn on some perturbing field, such 
>>> as an electric or magnetic field. An electric and magnetic field applied to 
>>> degenerate atomic states result in Stark and Zeeman splitting.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Not to split hairs, but what does degenerate mean? AG 
>>
>
> Degeneracy is what I defined above.
>
> LC
>

OK, but it's puzzling why we even get these degenerate states.  AG

>  
>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 3:24:31 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 12:49:02 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>  http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node40.html
>

 Can we have different eigenfunctions with the same eigenvalue? How 
 common is this? TIA, AG 

>>>

-- 
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: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>>> all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>>> You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>>> wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
>> know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you 
>> expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
>> NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

 *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
 AG*

>>>
>>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>>
>>> Thank you. 
>>>
>>
>> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
>> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
>> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
>> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
>> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
>> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to 
>> be the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the 
>> empirical discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a 
>> physical state. 
>>
>
> *Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.*
>
>
>
> Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added 
> to a wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical 
> waves, like on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard 
> to interpret. They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the 
> amplitude gives the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to 
> the fact that the amplitude is physically real with objective sharable 
> consequence.
>
>
>
> * Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but 
> why don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a 
> FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever? *
>
>
> I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would 
> entail a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse 
> occurs, especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to 
> occur from the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:40:26 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
>>> all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
>>> You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
>>> wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you 
>> know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you 
>> expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am 
>> NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

 *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
 AG*

>>>
>>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small 
>>> for us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as 
>>> we all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>>>
>>> Thank you. 
>>>
>>
>> *How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
>> superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
>> use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
>> why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
>> form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
>> NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG* 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to 
>> be the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the 
>> empirical discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a 
>> physical state. 
>>
>
> *Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.*
>
>
>
> Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added 
> to a wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical 
> waves, like on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard 
> to interpret. They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the 
> amplitude gives the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to 
> the fact that the amplitude is physically real with objective sharable 
> consequence.
>
>
>
> * Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but 
> why don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a 
> FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever? *
>
>
> I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would 
> entail a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse 
> occurs, especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to 
> occur from the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 22:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
 
 
 
> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
 
 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
 You are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for 
 anything else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been 
 shown wrong, at any scale and level.
 
 Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  
 
 OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>> 
>>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
>>> about. Thanks for your time. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>> superposition,
>> 
>> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG
>> 
>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
>> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
>> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>> 
>> Thank you. 
>> 
>> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition 
>> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use 
>> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do 
>> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form 
>> a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT 
>> unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be 
> the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
> discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical 
> state.
> 
> Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME's. Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which 
> is understandable, but why don't you object to classical plane wave 
> solutions? Don't you think a FTL phenomenon must exist to create the wave at 
> infinity, along the plane, extended forever? Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM 
> is its probability prediction, which is *different* from what one would 
> expect classically. This is because the wf is complex, and because the 
> probability is calculated by taking the norm-squared, one gets a different 
> prediction for the interference, which manifests mathematically by the 
> existence of cross terms. AG
>  
> That has been verified directly and indirectly by molecular and atomic 
> physics, and even black hole and cosmology. It is not a question of 
> interpretation: it is a fact that a state like up+down will pass with 
> probability one a “polariser” (analyser) measuring in the base {up+down, 
> up-down}, and that is not the case for a mixture of up and down particles, 
> each of which pass with a probability 1/2.
> 
> Before discussing any interpretation, we need to agree on the theory we are 
> using. I am discussing Everett theory, which is Copenhagen minus the collapse 
> postulate. Without the collapse 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 12:30, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:29:58 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 21:53, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
 
 
 
> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
 
 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
 You are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for 
 anything else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been 
 shown wrong, at any scale and level.
 
 Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  
 
 OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>> 
>>> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
>>> about. Thanks for your time. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>> superposition,
>> 
>> I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG
>> 
>> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
>> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
>> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
>> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>> 
>> Thank you. 
>> 
>> How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to superposition 
>> per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We use 
>> superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but why do 
>> the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
>> eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and form 
>> a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is NOT 
>> unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
>> quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
>> SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
>> simultaneously. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just mentioning the superposition principle, the one Dirac said to be 
> the essence and the mystery of quantum mechanics. QM is just the empirical 
> discovery that the linear sum of two physical states is still a physical 
> state.
> 
> Not true. In classical E, one can add two plane wave solutions, and get 
> another solution to ME’s.


Yes indeed. The superposition notion comes from the fact that a wave added to a 
wave is a wave. Now, with classical EM, those are typical physical waves, like 
on the sea. But QM describes everything by wave, which are hard to interpret. 
They describe amplitude of probability. Only the quake of the amplitude gives 
the probability, and that led to the “many-worlds”, due to the fact that the 
amplitude is physically real with objective sharable consequence.



> Also, you seem averse to violating the SoL, which is understandable, but why 
> don't you object to classical plane wave solutions? Don't you think a FTL 
> phenomenon must exist to create the wave at infinity, along the plane, 
> extended forever?

I don’t think so. It is only the collapse of the entire wave which would entail 
a FTL event. That is why I tend to be skeptical such a collapse occurs, 
especially that the SWE explains why a collapse has to *seem* to occur from the 
observer relative position in the universal wave.



> Finally, FWIW, the mystery of QM is its probability prediction, which is 
> *different* from what one would expect classically. This is because the wf is 
> complex, and because the probability is calculated by taking the 
> norm-squared, one gets a different prediction for the interference, which 
> manifests 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute 
>>> > simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure 
>>> > mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set theory, or 
>>> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single 
>>> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in 
>>> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.
>>> 
>>> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible 
>>> algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.
>>> 
>>> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world 
>>> and only this world that would be something.
>>> 
>>> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to 
>>> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each 
>>> individual being within that everything should also be able to see 
>>> everything.
>> 
>> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really 
>> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth")  you 
>> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able to 
>> see all those novels play out.
>> 
>> If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you 
>> shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then you 
>> can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism of the 
>> theory.
> 
> However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it.
> 
> You could, but Robinson arithmetic is fairly coherent, in my opinion.

Indeed. Robinso Arithmetic, or Shoenfinkel-Curry combinator theory proves the 
existence of a quantum universal dovetailer. Of course that does not solve the 
mind-body problem, we have still to extract it from self-reference to 
distinguish qualia and quanta. 

If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and Sxyz 
(+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike Robison 
arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh in my head 
because I have just finished a thorough course on this. Combinators are also 
interesting to explain what is a computation and for differentiating different 
sorts of computation, including already sort of “physical computation”. Yet it 
would be treachery to use this directly. To distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 
quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract them from Löb’s formula, and use 
Löbian combinators. I will probably type a summary here.

Bruno



> 
> Jason 
> 
> -- 
> 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.