Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> According to CERN(*), very recently, some neutrino would have a FTL
speed.

Did you check the date of that post? I think you might have been
pranked.

More seriously, there were some experimental results indicating FTL
neutrinos in 2011, that were later found to be due to experimental
error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
This April Fools blog seems to have been based on that.

> It is still unclear to me if that would be a threat for mechanism. FTL are 
> not the real problem, it is the notion of simultaneity which could be the 
> problem. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> (*) 
> http://www.physics-astronomy.org/2018/04/breaking-researchers-at-cern-break.html?m=1

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 --

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/27/2018 5:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le sam. 28 juil. 2018 à 00:12, Brent Meeker > a écrit :




On 7/27/2018 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 22:48, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit :



On 7/27/2018 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 20:18, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit :



On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> a écrit :



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.



No, because that's not what happens, at every
interactions, universes split/differentiate... Humans
or not.


I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First,
the vector in Hilbert space representing the state of
the universe just rotates around. It never "splits". 
What we refer to as "splitting" is the projection onto a
plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a certain
"classical" world. Second, this "classical" world plane
is not sharply defined. Almost all interactions do not
make any difference to it, i.e. they only make Planck
sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny
tilts to the projective plane.  The myriad atomic
interactions in your body don't make any classical
difference.



Yet if QM is the theory of reality, there is no classical
world that exists ontologicaly... So makes no difference to
who, what?


That the ontology of the world is quantum is a theory.  The
theory is derived from and supported by evidence which is
stuff experienced by you and me.  Our experience of the world
is "classical" (notice I used scare quotes, as I did above). 
Bohr was right when he observed that science and knowledge
are only possible in a "classical" world; a world in which
records exist and observers can agree on them and we do not
observe macroscopic superpositions.



If QM is reality, microscopic change are parallel realities even
if your conscious state is compatible, span over them...Hence
computationalism.


*IF* QM is reality...or is it just our best current model of
reality.  That's part of my point.  Ontologies come from theories,
which come from epistemology.


Well I've said If... And also, unless you deny any ontology, if QM is 
true, then these microscopic changes makes parralel realities... Then 
you have to have a theory of mind which 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le sam. 28 juil. 2018 à 00:12, Brent Meeker  a écrit :

>
>
> On 7/27/2018 1:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 22:48, Brent Meeker  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/2018 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 20:18, Brent Meeker  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>>


 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.

>>>
>>>
>>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
>>> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector in
>>> Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just rotates around.
>>> It never "splits".  What we refer to as "splitting" is the projection onto
>>> a plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a certain "classical"
>>> world.  Second, this "classical" world plane is not sharply defined.
>>> Almost all interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e. they only
>>> make Planck sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny tilts to
>>> the projective plane.  The myriad atomic interactions in your body don't
>>> make any classical difference.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yet if QM is the theory of reality, there is no classical world that
>> exists ontologicaly... So makes no difference to who, what?
>>
>>
>> That the ontology of the world is quantum is a theory.  The theory is
>> derived from and supported by evidence which is stuff experienced by you
>> and me.  Our experience of the world is "classical" (notice I used scare
>> quotes, as I did above).  Bohr was right when he observed that science and
>> knowledge are only possible in a "classical" world; a world in which
>> records exist and observers can agree on them and we do not observe
>> macroscopic superpositions.
>>
>
>
> If QM is reality, microscopic change are parallel realities even if your
> conscious state is compatible, span over them...Hence computationalism.
>
>
> *IF* QM is reality...or is it just our best current model of reality.
> That's part of my point.  Ontologies come from theories, which come from
> epistemology.
>

Well I've said If... And also, unless you deny any ontology, if QM is true,
then these microscopic changes makes parralel realities... Then you have to
have a theory of mind which can explain that the same conscious state can
supervene on these different micro states.


Don't repeat your ifi've said it, and no epistemology doesn't precede
ontology, it does only in our discussion about it, but IF there is
something really real, it precedes everything.

Quentin



> 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.
>

-- 
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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:15:58 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:19:47 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 19:55,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:58:47 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 09:26,  a écrit :

>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.  
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
>> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
>>
>>
>> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
>>
>
> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting 
> occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit 
> experiment. AG 
>


 Your judgment is impaired because that 's not what happens, splitting 
 happens continuously, Joe the plumber is part of the universe so as his 
 thoughts and whatever he does... His decisions are not something that 
 exists independently outside of that, Joe the plumber does not create 
 universe, any qm interactions split the universe, since the beginning of 
 the universe, no humans needed at all. 

>>> 5 
>>> *I misspoke. I just meant that by doing a single event slit experiment, 
>>> it is alleged by the MWI that the universe splits uncountably. I didn't 
>>> mean that the alleged physical splitting is caused by human consciousness, 
>>> in this case the decision to do the experiment. It's like a man deciding to 
>>> jump off a roof and gets killed; his death is directly caused by gravity, 
>>> not that the man caused the gravity to exist. The alleged splitting is not 
>>> disprovable, just plausible for those whose judgement is impaired due to an 
>>> over reliance on mathematics. As I pointed out several times, without any 
>>> reasoned responses, in E we have plane wave solutions to Maxwell's 
>>> Equations, but plane waves do not exist in nature. IOW, mathematics 
>>> modeling physical reality can sometimes be misleading as in the E 
>>> example. AG*
>>>
>>
>> It's you who's using the Joe the plumber argument to make it looks like 
>> insane... It's just a straw man. Stop using insult and straw man, it is 
>> useless and childish. 
>>
>
> *He was a republican, just a citizen who had his 15 minutes of fame in a 
> recent US election. You can change the name, but it comes to the same 
> result. While you're at it, tell us about the mathematics that leads to 
> plane wave solutions which don't exist in reality. AG*
>

*The fallacy in your reasoning which supports the MWI and which you are 
loathe to admit, is over-reliance on mathematics, the belief that it always 
gives solutions that exist in physical reality. The plane wave solutions of 
ME's is a good example of what I am referring to; mathematical solutions 
that don't exist in nature. AG *

>
>
>> Quentin 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou

>>> 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/27/2018 12:19 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:18:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, > a écrit :



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.



No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions,
universes split/differentiate... Humans or not.


I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector
in Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just
rotates around. It never "splits".  What we refer to as
"splitting" is the projection onto a plane in the Hilbert space
that corresponds to a certain "classical" world.


*Isn't the projection another word the collapse? Are classical worlds 
"created" by the collapse of the wf? AG*


No, I don't mean changing the state vector in Hilbert space by a 
projection operator.  I mean that if you consider the projection onto 
the hyper-plane corresponding to a particular measurement value, the 
existence of that hyperplane is an idealization and that in reality 
there are a virtually infinite number of such hyperplanes which are 
different only at the atomic level and are indiscernible from our 
viewpoint. So it's misleading to think of "worlds", which are classical 
constructs, splitting because of these quantum events.  A classical 
world should be thought of as a fuzzy approximation, a set of very 
similar hyper-planes on which the Hilbert vector of the multiverse could 
be projected.  The "World" only splits when there is a classical difference.


Brent


Second, this "classical" world plane is not sharply defined. 
Almost all interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e.
they only make Planck sized changes to the action and
correspondingly tiny tilts to the projective plane.  The myriad
atomic interactions in your body don't make any classical
difference.  Only the few that cause you to take action at the
classical level.

Brent





Humans have nothing to do in the process.


--
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: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 22:48, Brent Meeker  a écrit :

>
>
> On 7/27/2018 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 20:18, Brent Meeker  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
>> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>>
>>
>> I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector in
>> Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just rotates around.
>> It never "splits".  What we refer to as "splitting" is the projection onto
>> a plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a certain "classical"
>> world.  Second, this "classical" world plane is not sharply defined.
>> Almost all interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e. they only
>> make Planck sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny tilts to
>> the projective plane.  The myriad atomic interactions in your body don't
>> make any classical difference.
>>
>
>
> Yet if QM is the theory of reality, there is no classical world that
> exists ontologicaly... So makes no difference to who, what?
>
>
> That the ontology of the world is quantum is a theory.  The theory is
> derived from and supported by evidence which is stuff experienced by you
> and me.  Our experience of the world is "classical" (notice I used scare
> quotes, as I did above).  Bohr was right when he observed that science and
> knowledge are only possible in a "classical" world; a world in which
> records exist and observers can agree on them and we do not observe
> macroscopic superpositions.
>


If QM is reality, microscopic change are parallel realities even if your
conscious state is compatible, span over them...Hence computationalism.

>
> Brent
> "Epistemology precedes ontology."
> --- terry savage
>
>
>   Only the few that cause you to take action at the classical level.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Humans have nothing to do in the process.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/27/2018 11:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 20:18, Brent Meeker > a écrit :




On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> a écrit :



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.



No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions,
universes split/differentiate... Humans or not.


I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector
in Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just
rotates around. It never "splits". What we refer to as "splitting"
is the projection onto a plane in the Hilbert space that
corresponds to a certain "classical" world.  Second, this
"classical" world plane is not sharply defined.  Almost all
interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e. they only make
Planck sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny tilts
to the projective plane.  The myriad atomic interactions in your
body don't make any classical difference.



Yet if QM is the theory of reality, there is no classical world that 
exists ontologicaly... So makes no difference to who, what?


That the ontology of the world is quantum is a theory.  The theory is 
derived from and supported by evidence which is stuff experienced by you 
and me.  Our experience of the world is "classical" (notice I used scare 
quotes, as I did above).  Bohr was right when he observed that science 
and knowledge are only possible in a "classical" world; a world in which 
records exist and observers can agree on them and we do not observe 
macroscopic superpositions.


Brent
"Epistemology precedes ontology."
        --- terry savage



  Only the few that cause you to take action at the classical level.

Brent





Humans have nothing to do in the process.


-- 
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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:18:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> 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.  
>>
>
>
> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
>
>
> I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector in 
> Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just rotates around. 
> It never "splits".  What we refer to as "splitting" is the projection onto 
> a plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a certain "classical" 
> world.  
>

*Isn't the projection another word the collapse? Are classical worlds 
"created" by the collapse of the wf? AG*
 

> Second, this "classical" world plane is not sharply defined.  Almost all 
> interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e. they only make Planck 
> sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny tilts to the 
> projective plane.  The myriad atomic interactions in your body don't make 
> any classical difference.  Only the few that cause you to take action at 
> the classical level.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
>
>
>

-- 
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 Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:19:47 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 19:55, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:58:47 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 09:26,  a écrit :
>>>


 On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> 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.  
>>
>
>
> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
>
>
> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
>

 Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting 
 occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit 
 experiment. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> Your judgment is impaired because that 's not what happens, splitting 
>>> happens continuously, Joe the plumber is part of the universe so as his 
>>> thoughts and whatever he does... His decisions are not something that 
>>> exists independently outside of that, Joe the plumber does not create 
>>> universe, any qm interactions split the universe, since the beginning of 
>>> the universe, no humans needed at all. 
>>>
>> 5 
>> *I misspoke. I just meant that by doing a single event slit experiment, 
>> it is alleged by the MWI that the universe splits uncountably. I didn't 
>> mean that the alleged physical splitting is caused by human consciousness, 
>> in this case the decision to do the experiment. It's like a man deciding to 
>> jump off a roof and gets killed; his death is directly caused by gravity, 
>> not that the man caused the gravity to exist. The alleged splitting is not 
>> disprovable, just plausible for those whose judgement is impaired due to an 
>> over reliance on mathematics. As I pointed out several times, without any 
>> reasoned responses, in E we have plane wave solutions to Maxwell's 
>> Equations, but plane waves do not exist in nature. IOW, mathematics 
>> modeling physical reality can sometimes be misleading as in the E 
>> example. AG*
>>
>
> It's you who's using the Joe the plumber argument to make it looks like 
> insane... It's just a straw man. Stop using insult and straw man, it is 
> useless and childish. 
>

*He was a republican, just a citizen who had his 15 minutes of fame in a 
recent US election. You can change the name, but it comes to the same 
result. While you're at it, tell us about the mathematics that leads to 
plane wave solutions which don't exist in reality. AG*

>
> Quentin 
>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>> 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-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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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*
>
>
>
> That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends 
> to zero on infinity.
> A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
> reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no 
> time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a 
> physical universe. I would say.
>

*You don't know what a plane wave is. Like any wave, the amplitude varies 
in time and is finite. But for a plane wave, the values, whatever they are, 
extend on a plane to infinity, and the plane moves as a function of time 
and the values change identically along the entire plane. Nothing to do 
with square integral functions. 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 *
>
>
> I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about 
> the physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition. 
>

*You're so obsessed with Everett and the collapse issue, that you are 
INCAPABLE of discussing my critique of the interpretation of superposition. 
Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that all 
components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue against. AG*
 

> For me, only Everett QM makes sense. Copenhagen would make sense with some 
> reasonable explanation for the Physical collapse, but nobody finds it, and 
> we know now that it would entails FTL or non-realism, etc. Without 
> collapse, no superposition ever disappear, but everything becomes smooth 
> again, except for the perhaps showing mutiplication of histories and 
> persons, but it is only shocking, not contradictory, and not as magical 
> than instantaneous action at a distance.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/27/2018 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which 
tends to zero on infinity.
A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical 
reality. It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there 
is no time and space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a 
wave in a physical universe. I would say.


So much for "everything exists".  :-)

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: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 20:18, Brent Meeker  a écrit :

>
>
> On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>
>
> I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector in
> Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just rotates around.
> It never "splits".  What we refer to as "splitting" is the projection onto
> a plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a certain "classical"
> world.  Second, this "classical" world plane is not sharply defined.
> Almost all interactions do not make any difference to it, i.e. they only
> make Planck sized changes to the action and correspondingly tiny tilts to
> the projective plane.  The myriad atomic interactions in your body don't
> make any classical difference.
>


Yet if QM is the theory of reality, there is no classical world that exists
ontologicaly... So makes no difference to who, what?

>   Only the few that cause you to take action at the classical level.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
> Humans have nothing to do in the process.
>
>
> --
> 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: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 19:55,  a écrit :

>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:58:47 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 09:26,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :

>
>
> 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.
>


 No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
 split/differentiate... Humans or not.


 Humans have nothing to do in the process.

>>>
>>> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting
>>> occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit
>>> experiment. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your judgment is impaired because that 's not what happens, splitting
>> happens continuously, Joe the plumber is part of the universe so as his
>> thoughts and whatever he does... His decisions are not something that
>> exists independently outside of that, Joe the plumber does not create
>> universe, any qm interactions split the universe, since the beginning of
>> the universe, no humans needed at all.
>>
>
> *I misspoke. I just meant that by doing a single event slit experiment, it
> is alleged by the MWI that the universe splits uncountably. I didn't mean
> that the alleged physical splitting is caused by human consciousness, in
> this case the decision to do the experiment. It's like a man deciding to
> jump off a roof and gets killed; his death is directly caused by gravity,
> not that the man caused the gravity to exist. The alleged splitting is not
> disprovable, just plausible for those whose judgement is impaired due to an
> over reliance on mathematics. As I pointed out several times, without any
> reasoned responses, in E we have plane wave solutions to Maxwell's
> Equations, but plane waves do not exist in nature. IOW, mathematics
> modeling physical reality can sometimes be misleading as in the E
> example. AG*
>

It's you who's using the Joe the plumber argument to make it looks like
insane... It's just a straw man. Stop using insult and straw man, it is
useless and childish.

Quentin

>
>
> --
>> 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-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-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, 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/26/2018 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, > a écrit :




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.



No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
split/differentiate... Humans or not.


I think that's a misleading way to look at it.  First, the vector in 
Hilbert space representing the state of the universe just rotates 
around. It never "splits".  What we refer to as "splitting" is the 
projection onto a plane in the Hilbert space that corresponds to a 
certain "classical" world.  Second, this "classical" world plane is not 
sharply defined.  Almost all interactions do not make any difference to 
it, i.e. they only make Planck sized changes to the action and 
correspondingly tiny tilts to the projective plane.  The myriad atomic 
interactions in your body don't make any classical difference.  Only the 
few that cause you to take action at the classical level.


Brent





Humans have nothing to do in the process.


--
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 Friday, July 27, 2018 at 9:58:47 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 09:26, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>>


 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.  

>>>
>>>
>>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
>>> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting 
>> occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit 
>> experiment. AG 
>>
>
>
> Your judgment is impaired because that 's not what happens, splitting 
> happens continuously, Joe the plumber is part of the universe so as his 
> thoughts and whatever he does... His decisions are not something that 
> exists independently outside of that, Joe the plumber does not create 
> universe, any qm interactions split the universe, since the beginning of 
> the universe, no humans needed at all. 
>

*I misspoke. I just meant that by doing a single event slit experiment, it 
is alleged by the MWI that the universe splits uncountably. I didn't mean 
that the alleged physical splitting is caused by human consciousness, in 
this case the decision to do the experiment. It's like a man deciding to 
jump off a roof and gets killed; his death is directly caused by gravity, 
not that the man caused the gravity to exist. The alleged splitting is not 
disprovable, just plausible for those whose judgement is impaired due to an 
over reliance on mathematics. As I pointed out several times, without any 
reasoned responses, in E we have plane wave solutions to Maxwell's 
Equations, but plane waves do not exist in nature. IOW, mathematics 
modeling physical reality can sometimes be misleading as in the E 
example. 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-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-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?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> >>
>> Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the
>> physical sort,
>
>
> *>You assume Aristotle philosophy,*
>

Despite what the current President of the USA says facts actually exist;
and so it is not an assumption it is a FACT that neither I nor anybody else
has ever seen a calculation other than the physical sort.


> *>You need to keep in mind the Aristotle/Plato divide.*
>

No I do not! Neither of those 2 Greek Bozos knew where the sun went at
night and therefore there is no reason for me to keep anything either of
them said in mind because today I have easy access to information that is
quite literally astronomically better than anything they could dream of.

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.

Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 21:45, Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!

Nice. I will begin soon a new thread “What is a computation?”.  I will first 
recall the key idea, so that people understand we don’t need a formal 
definition of computation to understand that the notion of universal 
computability entails directly incompleteness. Then I will introduce three 
formal notions of (universal) computation, andI will begin with the 
combinators.  I might go a little bit farer than “To mock a mocking bird”. Then 
I might illustrate all this with the better known notion of Turing machine, and 
says some words on the Diophantine Polynomials too. 

Bruno

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 21:50, Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> All you've managed to demonstrate below is that computations that don't 
> happen in this physicals universe can't affect this universe. 


Indeed, and note that Clark's demonstration correctness is debatable. If there 
is another universe, and if it contains a computation emulating abbey’s 
reconstitution in some copy of Moscow, that might very well influence Abbey’s 
expectation in “our" universe in the WM duplication. In fact, with 
computationalism, there is no genuine notion of “my universe”: we are always 
run by infinities of computations, and it is doubtable that they cohere so much 
s to define a unique universe, or even a unique multiverse, if any.

Bruno



> 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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, > a écrit :
> 
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 
> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
> 
> 
> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
> 
> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting occurs 
> BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit experiment. AG 

I doubt this actually. I don’t think the universe ever split. Only 
consciousness differentiates. Even if the cat in the sate a + d is isolated on 
the moon, I am “split” by it on earth, in the universal wave, but my 
consciousness will differentiate only if I look at the cat, or at anything 
having interacted with it.

That is just quantum tensor linearity: O(a + d) = O a + O d, even if O does not 
look at the cat.

Bruno





> -- 
> 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-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 
> .

-- 
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 23:45, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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

The M. I guess you mean QM (by which I alway mean QM-without-the collapse 
axioms).

But if I look at a cat in the alive +dead state, QM (without collapse) entails 
my consciousness differentiate into the two incompatible mind state “I see a 
cat alive” and “I see a cat dead”. To have only one history/universe/world, 
some mechanism must be given to make a branch disappear. But that contradicts 
QM-without collapse. To assume QM and a unique “universe” needs a collapse of 
some sort, or Bohm’s hidden variable theory, and FTL etc.



> 
> 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 

I like to push a discussion until if there is areal disagreement, we can at 
least agree on what we are disagreeing. Eventually, when done seriously, it 
ends with the understanding that we work in different theories, very often 
different metaphysics. We will see. I might put the axioms of QM in a post, so 
that we can start from a precise core theory.

Bruno




> 
> 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" 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 21:03, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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.


Just 1*C, and not according to my math, but yours. You are the one saying that 
the guy in W has to be the only “the”, when I insist that they are BOTH a 
unique “the”, of course from the first person view (which is the subject of the 
question asked in Helsinki).




> 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.
> 
> 


On the contrary, we have to put oneself at the place of both copies, and both 
says something like “I am the one feeling to be uniquely in a unique city”. So 
in Helsinki P(to fell in one city) = 1. 





>  
> >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.


Then you change the criteria of identity, and also you make comp false, as if 
the H guy cease to exist, we can no more give sense to “surviving with a 
digital brain”. 




> 
> >>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.
> 
> 

Nor it is needed. You are the one saying that the H-guy can predict what he 
will feel, but you have not yet given an algorithm. Once you did, but it was 
debunked by many in this list.



>  
> >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"
> 

We did that. See previous post. We have agree on the identity of person 
definition, and even on the difference between first and third person at some 
point. You should not ask the same question again and again. All the 
definitions are in all may papers on this subject. 



> 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,
> 

Not from any of the abbey’s pop, after the duplication and opening of the 
reconstitution box.

You keep abstracting yourself from the 3P and 1P difference, which in this 
context is 3p defined (content of diary outside the box (3p) and taken in the 
box (1p).

Bruno




> 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 
> .

-- 
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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 20:03, 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,


You assume Aristotle philosophy, where seeing is a criterion of truth. You need 
to keep in mind the Aristotle/Plato divide. Roughly speaking:

Aristote : I believe only in what I se (like St-Thomas).
Plato: I am specially skeptical about anything we can see.

After the closure of Plato Academy (+/- +500), the Aristotelian view has become 
the ontological paradigm, defended by both religious believer and materialists. 
The whole point is that this is refuted in any Digital Mechanist theory.

When doing science, we must not take anything for granted.

Bruno




> 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: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Jul 2018, at 23:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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


That is solved in QM by having only square integral functions, which tends to 
zero on infinity.
A classical wave with arbitrary high amplitude is an dubious physical reality. 
It belongs to math, where there is no FTL, given that there is no time and 
space in mathematics. You just cannot create such a wave in a physical 
universe. I would say.



> 
>  |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 


I really don’t see how we can evade that discussion when discussing about the 
physical nature, or the ontological nature, of the superposition. For me, only 
Everett QM makes sense. Copenhagen would make sense with some reasonable 
explanation for the Physical collapse, but nobody finds it, and we know now 
that it would entails FTL or non-realism, etc. Without collapse, no 
superposition ever disappear, but everything becomes smooth again, except for 
the perhaps showing mutiplication of histories and persons, but it is only 
shocking, not contradictory, and not as magical than instantaneous action at a 
distance.

Bruno




> 
> 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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 09:26,  a écrit :

>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
>> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>>
>>
>> Humans have nothing to do in the process.
>>
>
> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting
> occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit
> experiment. AG
>


Your judgment is impaired because that 's not what happens, splitting
happens continuously, Joe the plumber is part of the universe so as his
thoughts and whatever he does... His decisions are not something that
exists independently outside of that, Joe the plumber does not create
universe, any qm interactions split the universe, since the beginning of
the universe, no humans needed at all.

> --
 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-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.
>

-- 
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 --

[Telmo Menezes]

On 27 July 2018 at 11:44,   wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:50:36 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 27 July 2018 at 09:26,   wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
>> >> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Humans have nothing to do in the process.
>> >
>> >
>> > Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting
>> > occurs
>> > BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit
>> > experiment.
>>
>> I propose an exercise for you: try to provide a definition for the
>> words that you capitalized above.
>>
>> Telmo.
>
>
> I propose this exercise for you. A man jumps off a roof and is killed. Did
> his decision to jump cause his death, or was it gravity? AG

I will answer once I see your definitions of "cause" and "decide".

Telmo.

>>
>>
>> > 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-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-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.

-- 
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 Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:50:36 AM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 09:26,  > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit : 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 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. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
> >> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
> > 
> > 
> > Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting 
> occurs 
> > BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit 
> experiment. 
>
> I propose an exercise for you: try to provide a definition for the 
> words that you capitalized above. 
>
> Telmo. 
>

I propose this exercise for you. A man jumps off a roof and is killed. Did 
his decision to jump cause his death, or was it gravity? AG 

>
> > 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-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-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 --

[Telmo Menezes]

On 27 July 2018 at 09:26,   wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
>> split/differentiate... Humans or not.
>>
>>
>> Humans have nothing to do in the process.
>
>
> Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting occurs
> BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit experiment.

I propose an exercise for you: try to provide a definition for the
words that you capitalized above.

Telmo.

> 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-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.

-- 
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 Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:31:26 AM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> 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.  
>>
>
>
> No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes 
> split/differentiate... Humans or not. 
>
>
> Humans have nothing to do in the process. 
>

Like I said, the True Believers are judgement impaired. The splitting 
occurs BECAUSE Joe the Plumber DECIDES to perform a single event slit 
experiment. 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-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]

Le ven. 27 juil. 2018 à 00:10,  a écrit :

>
>
> 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.
>


No, because that's not what happens, at every interactions, universes
split/differentiate... Humans or not.


Humans have nothing to do in the process.

> --
>> 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.
>

-- 
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.