Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

Up and Dn are realizable physical states for a spin 1/2 particle. Up - Dn, 
and Up + Dn are also realizable, that is physical states of a spin 1/2 
particle, according to the QM formaliam. We can't measure the latter two 
states because, presumably, we can't imagine what they are. Not being able 
to imagine them, means we can't build an instrument to measure them. If we 
can't imagine such states and can't measure them, why does QM insist they 
exist? TIA, AG

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

Combinators 1 (Introduction)

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Jason, people,


I will send my post on the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness later. It is 
too long.

So, let us proceed with the combinators.

Two seconds of historical motivation. During the crisis in set theory, Moses 
Schoenfinkel publishes, in 1924, an attempt to found mathematics on only 
functions. But he did not consider the functions as defined by their behaviour 
(or input-output) but more as rules to follow.

He considered also only functions of one variable, and wrote (f x) instead of 
the usual f(x).

The idea is that a binary function like (x + y) when given the input 4, say, 
and other inputs, will just remains patient, instead of insulting the user, and 
so to compute 4+5 you just give 5 (+ 4), that is you compute
 ((+ 4) 5). (+ 4) will be an object computing the function 4 + x. 


The composition of f and g on x is thus written  (f (g x)), and a combinator 
should be some function B able on f, g and x to give (f (g x)).

Bfgx = f(gx), for example. 

When I said that Shoenfinkel considered only functions, I meant it literally, 
and he accepts that a function applies to any other functions, so (f f) is 
permitted. Here (f f) is f applied to itself.

A first question was about the existence of a finite set of combinators capable 
of giving all possible combinators, noting that a combinators combine. 
Shoenfinkel will find that it is the case, and provide the S and K combinators, 
for this. I will prove this later.

A second question will be, can the SK-combinators compute all partial 
computable functions from N to N, and thus all total computable functions?  The 
answer is yes. That has been proved by Curry, I think.

OK? (Infinitely more could be said here, but let us give the mathematical 
definition of the SK-combinators:

K is a combinator. 
S is a combinator.
If x and y are combinator, then (x y) is a combinator.

That is, is combinator is S, or K or a combination of S and K.

So, the syntaxe is very easy, although there will be some problem with the 
parentheses which will justified a convention/simplifcation.

Example of combinators.

Well, K and S, and their combinations, (K K), (K S), (S K), (S S), and the (K ( 
K K)) and ((K K) K), and (K (K S)) and …… (((S (K S)) K) etc.

I directly introduce an abbreviation to avoid too many parentheses. As all 
combinator is a function with one argument, I suppress *all* parentheses 
starting from the left:
The enumeration above is then:  K, S, KK, KS, SK, K(KK), KKK, K(SK) and … 
S(KS)K ...

So aaa(bbb) will be an abbreviation for (  ((a a) a) ((b b) b) ). It means a 
applied on a, the result is applied on a, and that results is applied on  .. 
well the same with b (a and b being some combinators).



OK?

Of course, they obeys some axioms, without which it would be hard to believe 
they could be
1) combinatorial complete (theorem 1)
2) Turing complete (theorem 2)

What are the axioms?

I write them with the abbreviation (and without, a last time!)

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

That is all.

A natural fist exercise consists in finding an identity combinator. That is a 
combinator I such that Ix = x.

Well, only Kxy can give x, and Kxy does not seem to match xz(yz), so as to 
apply axiom 2, does it? Yes, it does with y matching (Kx), or (Sx). (Sometime 
we add again some left parenthesis to better see the match. 

So, x = Kxy = Kx(Kx) = SKKx, and we are done! I = SKK

Vérification (we would not have sent Curiosity on Mars, without testing the 
software, OK? Same with the combinators. Let us test SKK on say (KK), that 
gives SKK(KK) which gives by axiom 2 K(KK)(K(KK)) which gives (KK) = KK, done!

Note that SKK(KK) is a non stable combinators. It is called a redex. It is 
triggered by the axiom 2. The same for KKK, which gives K. A combinators which 
remains stable, and contains no redex, is said to be in normal form.  As you 
can guess, the price of Turing universality is that some combinators will have 
no normal form, and begin infinite computatutions. A computation, here, is a 
sequence of applications of the two axioms above. It can be proved that if a 
combinators has a normal form exist, all computations with evaluation staring 
from the left will find it.

I will tomorrow, or Monday, show that there is a combinator M such that Mx = 
xx, a combinators T such that Thy = yx, a combinator L such that Lxy = x(yy), … 
and others, Later, I will prove theorem 1 by providing an algorithm to build a 
combinator down any given combinations.That will prove the combinatorial 
completeness. Then I will prove that all recursive relation admits a solution, 
i.e. you can always find a combinator A such that Axyzt = x(Atzz)(yA), say. 
Then I will show how easy we can implement the control structure IF A then B 
else C, and follow Barendregt and Smullyan in using this to define the logical 
connectives with combinators, then I will provides some definition of the 
natural numbers, and define addition, multiplication, all primitive recursive 
function, 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 12:44:54 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> The whole weirdness of QM is that we can measure effects which in that 
> formalism entails the actuality of counterfactuals.
>

Counterfactuals in QM do not have the same ontology as classical objects. 
Prior to a measurement or decoherent process that shifts a superposition or 
entanglement phase from a system to a reservoir of states we might say the 
superposition of a quantum wave is a case of prior existing counterfactuals 
in a ψ-ontic interpretation, such as MWI. In MWI the counterfactual 
continues to exist after the process as well. In the deBroglie-Bohm 
interpretation the counterfactual does not exist. There is in that idea on 
active channel for the motion of the ontic particle.In ψ-epistemic 
interpretations it is odd to talk about counterfactuals existing or for 
that matter anything factual prior to the measurement of decoherence. As I 
have indicated QM is most likely neither purely ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic, so 
to talk about anything "existing" is a bit strange.

LC
 

>
> Computationalism is more than OK with this, as it predicted that for 
> almost all universal machine (that is all except a finite number of 
> exception), the reality below its substitution level is an infinite sum of 
> universal machine, and above its substitution level it is a finite sum of 
> universal machine (to handle with).
> Actually, physical decoherence saves mechanism, and QM, from solipsism. 
>
> Grayson, you seem to dislike the many-worlds or many-dreams, but 
> eventually, with mechanism, all we need to assume is the many-numbers, or 
> the many-combinators (as I will illustrate).  
>
> The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among others: it is 
> the border of the observable from a universal machine viewpoint. A very 
> peculiar structure implied by mechanism and a notion of correct 
> self-reference. 
>
> 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: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 5:44:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


Not at all. The belief in physical superposition comes from single photon 
thought experiences, corroborated by all the experimentation. Unlike the plane 
wave, all experiences suggests that the amplitude of the wave counts. In 
Feynman’s formulation of QM, the wave is recovered from the sum on all path. 
Attempts to select some parts of the wave are not confirmed by the experiences.




> 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 


The whole weirdness of QM is that we can measure effects which in that 
formalism entails the actuality of counterfactuals.

Computationalism is more than OK with this, as it predicted that for almost all 
universal machine (that is all except a finite 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
>
> >
> *That is an obvious fact, and it proves nothing*
>

So you believe facts prove nothing. Is your middle name "Trump"?


> >
> *Seeing proves nothing.*
>

It all comes down to asking myself one question, who am I going to believe,
you or my lying eyes?

* >It can only augment or diminish the plausibility of a theory*

Theory? Its not just that nobody has ever observed the phenomenon, there is
not even a theory of non-physical computation, nobody has ever proposed a
mechanism about how it could work, not even a implausible one. So there is
no evidence it exists and no ideas about how it might exist, you just say
it does. The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can change
itself or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything. Yes the
textbooks you keep talking about contain recipes that tell me how I can
make such a change, but the trouble is I am not non-physical.

> *>unless you are using Aristotle*
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]


> >
> *we have to backtrack to Plato *


 Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]

*>The fact that some people are wrong in some domain (geography) does not
> entail that they were wrong in another domain.*


Your Greek heroes died 2500 years ago and the human race has learned a
thing or two since then, except for pure mathematics they were wrong about
nearly everything in every domain. Even the rare times an ancient Greek did
find a true physical fact, like Eratosthenes did when he measured the
diameter of the Earth, it was far from universally accepted in Greek
culture .


> *>we have regress a lot in the most fundamental science (theology or
> metaphysics).*
>

Theology has no subject so you can't regress from it because its already at
zero; there is no there there.



> >
> *Indeed, some people still believe that seeing the moon is a prove of the
> existence of a primary moon, which is simply not valid,*
>

This confirms what I said before, you don't understand what philosophers
mean when they say "primary matter".


> *>Pythagoras and Plato understood*
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]


> >
>  Aristotle metaphysics
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]

John K Clark

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 11:39:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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*
>
>
> Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are 
> mathematical abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some 
> circular wave. In QM you can handle something close to plane wave with 
> distribution theory.
>

*You want to have your cake and eat it. Plane waves are solutions to ME's. 
You want to reify all mathematics as having ontological status, implying 
the MWI derivable from QM, but not plane waves. 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. 
> *
>
>
> Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing 
> the interpretation of the theory.
>

*Not necessary. For Copenhagen and Everett, the system represented by a 
superposition is in all component states simultaneously. Everett just goes 
further in saying the components continue to exist after measurement (in 
other words), whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via 
collapse. But I have discussing the first part of the interpretation of 
superposition, not how Everett extends it, or the problem for Copenhagen in 
the disappearance of the components upon measurement, except for the 
measured outcome. Put simply, I am only dealing with the initial 
interpretation of superposition, not the subsequent interpretation. No need 
to discuss Copenhagen vs Everett. You want me to say it again? AG*

> *Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that 
> all components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue 
> against. AG*
>
>
> I understood, but you fail to explain all mentioned example
>
> * I'm not trying to explain everything, other than the fact that the 
standard interpretation of superposition is in error.  AG*
 

> like the two slits, or the difference of behaviour between a pure state 
> and a mixed state. 
>


*How does the interpretation of superposition I allege as erroneous 
"explain" these phenomena? AFAICT, except for slit experiments, it's not 
even applied! AG *
To say that the superposition is only a claculational device does to 
work, as the two slits, and basically all superposition effect have 
observable consequences. 

*What SPECIFICALLY about superposition has observable consequences?** Since 
eigenstate components of a superposition are orthogonal, they don't even 
mutually interfere, so why assume they co-exist physically for the system 
they represent? What added explanatory value exists in this INTERPRETATION? 
Other than the case of slit experiments, the interpretation of 
superposition I object to is totally unnecessary, except to 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 00:12, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

The belief in this or that ontology comes from epistemology. By definition of 
ontology, it is real even without any observer or conscious being. I guess that 
this is what you mean, if not you get close to solipsism or subjective idealism.

Bruno


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

-- 
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 --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 23:05, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

OK. We should avoid the word “split”. There is no physical splitting of 
universe, nor any projection. There is only differentiation of the first person 
experience, and the projection is a first person appearance.

Bruno




> 
> 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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 17:59, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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.


That is an obvious fact, and it proves nothing, unless you are using Aristotle 
criterion of reality, which is simply logically inconsistent with the Mechanist 
theory. Seeing proves nothing. It can only augment or diminish the plausibility 
of a theory. That is why we have to backtrack to Plato, whose conception of 
reality makes much more sense when we assume mechanism in cognitive science.




>  
> >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.


The fact that some people are wrong in some domain (geography) does not entail 
that they were wrong in another domain. Your point is not valid. We have made 
some progress in physics and technology, but we have regress a lot in the most 
fundamental science (theology or metaphysics). Indeed, some people still 
believe that seeing the moon is a prove of the existence of a primary moon, 
which is simply not valid, as Pythagoras and Plato understood, but we have been 
brainswashed since with Aristotle metaphysics (materialism, the belief in the 
necessity to assume a primary physical universe, or primary matter, today 
completely confuse with physical universe and matter).

Bruno






> 
> 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 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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

Indeed, but in QM we have square integral function. Plane wave are mathematical 
abstraction. It is better to see then as the limit of some circular wave. In QM 
you can handle something close to plane wave with distribution theory.




>> 
>>  |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.

Because we have to decide of which theory we are using before discussing the 
interpretation of the theory.




> Everett, like Copenhagen, assumes the same about superposition -- that all 
> components exist physically and simultaneously -- which I argue against. AG


I understood, but you fail to explain all mentioned examples, like the two 
slits, or the difference of behaviour between a pure state and a mixed state. 
To say that the superposition is only a claculational device does to work, as 
the two slits, and basically all superposition effect have observable 
consequences. So, just to understand you, I need to know if you are in the 
Copenhagen theory or in Everett theory, then we can discuss how to interpret 
the theory, but we have to agree clearly which theory we are discussing. 
Everett and Copenhagen are different theories, i.e. different set of 
assumptions, NOT different interpretations of a unique theory. 

Bruno



>  
> 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, 
 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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".  :-)

“Everything” means nothing without saying which things we are talking about. To 
my knowledge, only “many computations” makes sense, by the “Gödel’s miracle” 
(Church’s thesis, the closure of the partial computable functions for the 
diagonalisation procedure). That means most functions do NOT exist, nor the 
real numbers, etc.

Bruno




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

-- 
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?

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker > > 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. 
>
>
> What does that have to do with "everything exists", which is not only 
> incoherent, but it is empirically false?  There is this myth that 
> "everything exists" or "everything happens" is a consequence of quantum 
> mechanics and it therefore proved by physics.  But quantum mechanics 
> predicts probability(x)=0 for many values of x, c.f. arXiv:0702121
>
> Brent
>
> *I would rather call "everything happens" an illusion rather than a myth, 
and IMO it originates from the interpretation of the superposition that all 
components states, which generally have different probabilities, physically 
exist, or co-exist. This is what I have been arguing here for some time 
now, and feeling like a voice crying in the wilderness. Moreover, it is 
from this illusion that I trace the origin of the MWI. It is a subtle 
connecting of dots which has led otherwise sharp minds, to go astray. And 
your opinion is what? AG* 

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