Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Alberto G. Corona]

We need a safe space-time


No universe was burned in the making of this email

2018-07-26 19:18 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 26 Jul 2018, at 13:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> --  a mental illness, verging on, but not quite a form of insanity. AG
>
>
>
> That was like the final word of the Church about Giordano Bruno, who dared
> to suggest there might be other planets, before burning it at the stake.
>
> You worry me a little bit.
>
> Anyway, closing discussion or using insult means you are not really
> interested in searching to understand, but more in imposing some
> religion(conception of reality) to others.
>
> It is sad, as we might agree eventually.
>
> The universal machine might say that the public assertion that there is
> even just *one* world (or one god) is already a form of insanity indeed.
> Just many dreams, maybe. But I guesss you will not like that so much.
>
> Science is just attempts to find theories which explain as much as
> possible. There is just no final word. Any assertive public certainty is
> (plausibly) a symptom of lie, or manipulation or insanity. Science is a
> voyage from doubts to doubts.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:17:16 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical 
>> computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate 
>> something faster; but the domain and range is the same.
>>
>> So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is merely a 
>> convenient (and very accurate) tool?
>>
>>
> Tool for what?  Predicting probabilities of finally measured values?
>

*In my view, that's all a wf can do. AG*

> aka
> What then can we say about the intermediate values and the computation 
> itself? 
>



*What intermediate values? The wf has no intermediate values; just the 
eigenvalues of the eigenstates in its expansion. AG *

> Does it exist and happen, or does the final result merely materialize 
> magically like the live or dead cat?
>

*In my view, we don't know how the final result materializes; the great 
unsolved problem in QM, aka the measurement problem, or a large part of it. 
But why introduce intermediate values, which IIUC the theory says don't 
exist. AG *

>
> Jason 
>
>

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:08:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM,  wrote:
>>>


 On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the 
>> wave function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating 
>> probabilities 
>> of experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The 
>> reason: 
>> it does things we cannot.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states 
> of a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between 
> those states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum 
> computing 
> work, or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG
>

 IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a 
 necessary condition for its success, or could you use the information-only 
 model of the superposition and get the same result. AG 

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in the 
>>> measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed and 
>>> interacted,
>>>
>>
>> *What are the intermediate states? *
>>
>
> Like a computer program before it prints its result and halts, the quantum 
> computer takes advantage of the unmeasured isolated QM system which can 
> enter a superposition of many simultaneous states, in the end, before the 
> quantum computer prints its result, it must use interference effects to get 
> all parts of the wave function to agree before it halts and gets measured.  
> If it doesn't then whoever measures the result of the quantum computer will 
> become entangled with that multi-valued state (causing that observer to 
> split).
>  
>
>>
>> *Isn't a qubit system a two-state system? AG*
>>
>
> A qubit will provide only 1 of 2 possible values when measured, but it can 
> take on an arbitrarily large number of states within the superposition 
>

*But the superposition of a qubit has only two components, and using the 
SWE only the probability of these two states change in time. So when 
speaking of one qubit, I have no idea what you mean by "an arbitrarily 
large number of states within the superposition". AG*
 

> through successive interaction with other qubits, effectively growing 
> exponentially.
>
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> all the while remaining in a super position (completely isolated from 
>>> the environment that contains the quantum computer) for the duration of the 
>>> computation.  The computation might have been a very long one, and may have 
>>> involved vast numbers of states simultaneously held by the qubits during 
>>> the computation.  Each of these states is designed by the quantum 
>>> computation to interfere in such a way to that in most of the branches the 
>>> measured qubits will yield the same result.
>>>
>>> We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure the 
>>> qubits afterwards to get the final answer.
>>> The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be 
>>> answered by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what the 
>>> wave function is doing to perform and implement the computation while we 
>>> are not measuring it.
>>>
>>
>> *Since when does QM tell us what is happening to a wf when the system it 
>> represents is not being measured? *
>>
>
> This is given by the Schrödinger equation.
>

*Of course. Right; I was confused by what you were trying to describe. AG* 

>  
>
>>
>> *Are you referring to decoherence theory? AG *
>>
>
> No.  Decoherence is exactly what you want to avoid within a quantum 
> computer.  That is the main engineering difficulty, keeping coherence 
> (keeping the system of the quantum computer isolated from the rest of the 
> environment so that the superposition can be maintained and evolve and 
> (from our point of view (being isolated from it)) enter many many states.
>

*If the superposition of a qubit evolves, all that can change are the 
probability amplitudes of its TWO components. Am I mistaken? AG *

>  
>
>>
>>> If one denies the existence of the wave function 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *I don't. AG *
>>
>
> Okay.  That's good.  If one accepts that the wave function is real, and 
> that it can implement computations, 
>

*How can a wf implement computations"? AFAIK, when expanded into orthogonal 
eigenstates, it can be use to calculate probabilities of each eigenvalue 
corresponding to each eigenvalue. I never heard it could do more than that. 
AG *
 

> then the interesting question becomes: what happens when those 
> computations are conscious?
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>> however, it leaves no room for talkin

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical
computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate
something faster; but the domain and range is the same.

So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is
merely a convenient (and very accurate) tool?


Tool for what?  Predicting probabilities of finally measured values?

What then can we say about the intermediate values and the computation 
itself?  Does it exist and happen, or does the final result merely 
materialize magically like the live or dead cat?


Does the spot on the screen behind two slits materialize magically? Or 
arise as a consequence of the interference in the one world?


In many-worlds, all possible screen spots occur in different worlds. But 
the separation into distinct worlds happens only on decoherence at the 
screen -- the interference all happens in the original single world.


Bruce

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical
> computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate
> something faster; but the domain and range is the same.
>
> So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is merely a
> convenient (and very accurate) tool?
>
>
Tool for what?  Predicting probabilities of finally measured values?

What then can we say about the intermediate values and the computation
itself?  Does it exist and happen, or does the final result merely
materialize magically like the live or dead cat?

Jason

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Brent Meeker]

?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical 
computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate 
something faster; but the domain and range is the same.


So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is merely a 
convenient (and very accurate) tool?


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: Realizable quantum states

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/29/2018 8:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, > wrote:




On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:

Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture
that the wave function is merely a convenience or tool for
estimating probabilities of experimental outcomes, rather
than something that is real. The reason: it does things we
cannot.

Jason


Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both
states of a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the
system toggle between those states, yet not be in both
simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work, or say be
conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG


IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a
necessary condition for its success, or could you use the
information-only model of the superposition and get the same
result. AG





In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in 
the measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed 
and interacted, all the while remaining in a super position 
(completely isolated from the environment that contains the quantum 
computer) for the duration of the computation.  The computation might 
have been a very long one, and may have involved vast numbers of 
states simultaneously held by the qubits during the computation.  Each 
of these states is designed by the quantum computation to interfere in 
such a way to that in most of the branches the measured qubits will 
yield the same result.


We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure 
the qubits afterwards to get the final answer.
The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be 
answered by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what 
the wave function is doing to perform and implement the computation 
while we are not measuring it.


If one denies the existence of the wave function however, it leaves no 
room for talking about these intermediate states that are necessary to 
explain how the final result of the computation ends up in the qubits.


And all those qubits exist in the same world  since they have to 
interfere in order to amplify the probability of the result and suppress 
others.


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: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave
> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of
> experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it
> does things we cannot.
>
> Jason
>

 Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states
 of a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between
 those states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing
 work, or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a
>>> necessary condition for its success, or could you use the information-only
>>> model of the superposition and get the same result. AG
>>>

>
>
>>
>> In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in the
>> measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed and
>> interacted,
>>
>
> *What are the intermediate states? *
>

Like a computer program before it prints its result and halts, the quantum
computer takes advantage of the unmeasured isolated QM system which can
enter a superposition of many simultaneous states, in the end, before the
quantum computer prints its result, it must use interference effects to get
all parts of the wave function to agree before it halts and gets measured.
If it doesn't then whoever measures the result of the quantum computer will
become entangled with that multi-valued state (causing that observer to
split).


>
> *Isn't a qubit system a two-state system? AG*
>

A qubit will provide only 1 of 2 possible values when measured, but it can
take on an arbitrarily large number of states within the superposition
through successive interaction with other qubits, effectively growing
exponentially.



>
>
>> all the while remaining in a super position (completely isolated from the
>> environment that contains the quantum computer) for the duration of the
>> computation.  The computation might have been a very long one, and may have
>> involved vast numbers of states simultaneously held by the qubits during
>> the computation.  Each of these states is designed by the quantum
>> computation to interfere in such a way to that in most of the branches the
>> measured qubits will yield the same result.
>>
>> We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure the
>> qubits afterwards to get the final answer.
>> The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be
>> answered by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what the
>> wave function is doing to perform and implement the computation while we
>> are not measuring it.
>>
>
> *Since when does QM tell us what is happening to a wf when the system it
> represents is not being measured? *
>

This is given by the Schrödinger equation.


>
> *Are you referring to decoherence theory? AG *
>

No.  Decoherence is exactly what you want to avoid within a quantum
computer.  That is the main engineering difficulty, keeping coherence
(keeping the system of the quantum computer isolated from the rest of the
environment so that the superposition can be maintained and evolve and
(from our point of view (being isolated from it)) enter many many states.


>
>> If one denies the existence of the wave function
>>
>
>
> *I don't. AG *
>

Okay.  That's good.  If one accepts that the wave function is real, and
that it can implement computations, then the interesting question becomes:
what happens when those computations are conscious?

Jason


>
> however, it leaves no room for talking about these intermediate states
>> that are necessary to explain how the final result of the computation ends
>> up in the qubits.
>>
>> Jason
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:

 Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave 
 function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of 
 experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it 
 does things we cannot.

 Jason

>>>
>>> Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states of 
>>> a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between those 
>>> states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work, 
>>> or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a 
>> necessary condition for its success, or could you use the information-only 
>> model of the superposition and get the same result. AG 
>>
>>>


>
> In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in the 
> measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed and 
> interacted,
>


*What are the intermediate states? Isn't a qubit system a two-state system? 
AG *

> all the while remaining in a super position (completely isolated from the 
> environment that contains the quantum computer) for the duration of the 
> computation.  The computation might have been a very long one, and may have 
> involved vast numbers of states simultaneously held by the qubits during 
> the computation.  Each of these states is designed by the quantum 
> computation to interfere in such a way to that in most of the branches the 
> measured qubits will yield the same result.
>
> We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure the 
> qubits afterwards to get the final answer.
> The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be answered 
> by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what the wave 
> function is doing to perform and implement the computation while we are not 
> measuring it.
>


*Since when does QM tell us what is happening to a wf when the system it 
represents is not being measured? Are you referring to decoherence theory? 
AG *

>
> If one denies the existence of the wave function 
>


*I don't. AG *

> however, it leaves no room for talking about these intermediate states 
> that are necessary to explain how the final result of the computation ends 
> up in the qubits.
>
> Jason
>

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave
>>> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of
>>> experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it
>>> does things we cannot.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states of
>> a qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between those
>> states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work,
>> or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG
>>
>
> IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a
> necessary condition for its success, or could you use the information-only
> model of the superposition and get the same result. AG
>
>>
>>>
>>>

In order to explain the final result of the computation appearing in the
measured qubits, each of the intermediate states must have existed and
interacted, all the while remaining in a super position (completely
isolated from the environment that contains the quantum computer) for the
duration of the computation.  The computation might have been a very long
one, and may have involved vast numbers of states simultaneously held by
the qubits during the computation.  Each of these states is designed by the
quantum computation to interfere in such a way to that in most of the
branches the measured qubits will yield the same result.

We know we can prepare a quantum computation. We know we can measure the
qubits afterwards to get the final answer.
The big question of "what is going on in the middle?" can only be answered
by resorting to asking what the theory can tell us of what the wave
function is doing to perform and implement the computation while we are not
measuring it.

If one denies the existence of the wave function however, it leaves no room
for talking about these intermediate states that are necessary to explain
how the final result of the computation ends up in the qubits.

Jason

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
>
> If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have
> demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses
> so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual
> problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to swallow.
>
> The nature of these problems is in my opinion best explained by this page:
> https://www.readthesequences.com/IfManyWorldsHadComeFirst
>
> Perhaps if you read it, you will have a better understanding of the source
> of our mental illness.
>
>
> The author of this should have taken a bit more care to get his facts of
> history right! Everett was not crushed by the rejection of his theory. He
> did not want a career in academic physics. Wheeler tired hard to persuade
> him otherwise, and even offered to find him positions later in his career.
> With Wheeler on his team, a key academic position would have been a cinch
> -- if he had wanted it.
>
>
I don't think either of us can claim to know his motives. But the facts are
he left academia after his disastrous meeting with Bohr.


> Besides, Everett did not work out the important details of decoherence.
> That did not happen until Zeh in 1970, and it was Wigner who saw the
> importance of this work and helped Zeh get his paper published. It is all
> very well to claim Everett as the great mistreated hero who actually solved
> all of physics, but this is a myth.
>
> You should read the new book "What is Real?" by Adam Becker to get a more
> balanced view of the actual history of quantum physics.
>
> In addition, many-worlds or the relative state theory, does not give a
> local account of EPR entanglement!
>

The article I linked isn't meant to be an accurate (nor even a mirrored)
description of the history of QM, but rather is describing an alternate
fictional (or perhaps "relatively fictional") history where decoherence was
discovered before collapse was proposed.  The point being that the idea of
"collapse" would almost certainly be rejected out of hand for it's many
problems, which the article does a good job at enumerating.

Jason

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and 
have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what 
ours senses so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found 
the conceptual problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder 
pill to swallow.


The nature of these problems is in my opinion best explained by this 
page: https://www.readthesequences.com/IfManyWorldsHadComeFirst 



Perhaps if you read it, you will have a better understanding of the 
source of our mental illness.


The author of this should have taken a bit more care to get his facts of 
history right! Everett was not crushed by the rejection of his theory. 
He did not want a career in academic physics. Wheeler tired hard to 
persuade him otherwise, and even offered to find him positions later in 
his career. With Wheeler on his team, a key academic position would have 
been a cinch -- if he had wanted it.


Besides, Everett did not work out the important details of decoherence. 
That did not happen until Zeh in 1970, and it was Wigner who saw the 
importance of this work and helped Zeh get his paper published. It is 
all very well to claim Everett as the great mistreated hero who actually 
solved all of physics, but this is a myth.


You should read the new book "What is Real?" by Adam Becker to get a 
more balanced view of the actual history of quantum physics.


In addition, many-worlds or the relative state theory, does not give a 
local account of EPR entanglement!


Bruce

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

Re: Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave 
>> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of 
>> experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it 
>> does things we cannot.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states of a 
> qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between those 
> states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work, 
> or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG
>

IOW, is the model of superposition you use in quantum computing a necessary 
condition for its success, or could you use the information-only model of 
the superposition and get the same result. AG 

>
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> 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-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: Realizable quantum states

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave 
> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of 
> experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it 
> does things we cannot.
>
> Jason
>

Can you be specific? Why does quantum computing depend on both states of a 
qubit(?) be occupied simultaneously? Can the system toggle between those 
states, yet not be in both simultaneously? Couldn't quantum computing work, 
or say be conceptualized with his model? TIA, AG

>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
>> 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-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 Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> *Facts provide finite amount of information, *
>

Yes, but most theories provide no information at all because most theories
are worthless. Its rather incredible, this list has become so effete and
unscientific that I actually have to argue in favor of the existence and
value of facts.


> *>where most theories extrapolate them to an infinity of proposition.*
>

And for most theories nearly all of those
infinity of proposition
are dead WRONG.

*>even the books or papers on physical computations define them by
> “physical implementation of the usual standard mathematical notion.*
>

Books and papers may be able to define a computation but they can not
perform a computation, and all books are written in some language, the way
physics works is best described in the language of mathematics, computation
is physical so a book about computation is best written in the language of
mathematics.

I asked you to provide a definition of a physical computation which do not
> borrow the mathematical notion (that you can find in basically all papers
> which found the subject, like in Davis “The Undecidable”), but you didn’t
> answer.
>

I don't recall you asking me that, I may have inadvertently skipped too
 when you started droning on about physics being theology; but I will
answer it now. Physical computation is computation done by exploiting thy
ways matter obeys the laws of physics, and the term is redundant because
physical computation is the only type of computation ever observed and the
only type of computation hypothesized. Stating that non-physical
computations exist without any evidence or even the slightest hint about
how it might work is not a hypothesis, its just a belief.

*>You continue to use Aristotle*
> * [blah blah blah*]
>

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

>
>>
>> nobody has ever proposed a mechanism about how it could work, not even a
>> implausible one.
>
>
> *Just tell me how a universal Turing machine could distinguish an
> arithmetical reality from a physical one.*
>

A Turing Machine can't do something with the tape or with the read/write
head if the laws of physics do not allow it, and the sheep herder who
invented arithmetic 10,000 years ago made sure it conformed with physical
reality, so a physical Turing Machine can't tell if it is operating with a
read/write head and tape made of matter or if it is being simulated by
another Turing Machine that is. One thing is certain however, somewhere
down the line matter and physics are involved


> *> Or explain what is the primitive matter*


You want me to explain "primitive matter"?? You're the one who keeps
talking about it and you're the one who demonstrated you don't know what
philosophers mean when they use the tern


> >
> and how it selects the "conscious computations”.
>

Turing and Darwin showed how matter that obeys the laws of physics can
produce intelligence, neither you nor anybody else has ever provided even a
clue as to how pure numbers or anything else non-physical could do the same
thing. As for consciousness, it's the way data feels when it is being
processed; I'll go into more detail about how atoms manage to do this as
soon as you explain how the integer "6" can.


>> >>
>> The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can change itself
>> or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything.
>
>

*>Of course it can. “Doing” is a relative notion.*
>

A
 physical object can change its position *relative* to another physical
object, for example the distance between the read/write head of a Turing
machine and particular box on the tape. and that ability enables it to make
computations, but the distance between the integer 6 and the integer 4
never changes, and that's why they can't make computations. Computation
needs something to change and non-physical things don't change.

*>Well. I begin to suspect that you are a sort of priest,*
>

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> >
> *Anyone mocking Theology is a convinced Aristotelian*
> [blah blah blah]
>

Mr. Bruno One Note! Nothing but wall to wall Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks
[...]



> * >theologian. You believe in the God “matter”. In science,*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

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: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave
function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of
experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it
does things we cannot.

Jason

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM,  wrote:

> 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.
>

-- 
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 Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 8:17:34 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:32:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> *>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and 
>>> have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours 
>>> senses so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the 
>>> conceptual problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to 
>>> swallow.*
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. If MWI isn't true then something even weirder is.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *I explained it without the MWI. Forget collapse. Interpret the 
> superposition as offering information only, just like knowing the 
> probability of winning some slot machine. The only difference is the use of 
> complex amplitudes. Many unsolved mysteries in physics such as plane wave 
> solutions to ME's which don't exist in reality. Why is that not a big 
> problem? Why not obsess over that? AG *
>

*Why obsess about the alleged FTL collapse of the wf? Aren't wf's extended 
to infinity (like plane waves), way before any collapse is contemplated? 
Doesn't this imply something worse than FTL transmission; indeed, 
INSTANTANEOUS propagation?! AG *

>
>
>>  
>>
>

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:32:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
>
> *>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and 
>> have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours 
>> senses so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the 
>> conceptual problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to 
>> swallow.*
>>
>
> Exactly. If MWI isn't true then something even weirder is.
>
> John K Clark
>

*I explained it without the MWI. Forget collapse. Interpret the 
superposition as offering information only, just like knowing the 
probability of winning some slot machine. The only difference is the use of 
complex amplitudes. Many unsolved mysteries in physics such as plane wave 
solutions to ME's which don't exist in reality. Why is that not a big 
problem? Why not obsess over that? AG *

>
>  
>

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

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 3:08:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jul 2018, at 20:36, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation the counterfactual does not exist.
>
>
> Here I disagree. They continue to exist in the potential so that it guides 
> the particles correctly. It is empty of particles but still mimic a world 
> with particles from the point of view of possible observers (lacking 
> particles). The branches without particles must still mimic their internal 
> observers correctly to guide correctly the particles. I agree with Deutsch 
> when he says that the deBroglie-Bohm theory is a many-worlds theory, with 
> one branches “more real” (having particles), and the other branches 
> mimicked by the guiding potential. With mechanism, we cannot know if we are 
> in the worlds with the particles or without, unless we postulate, as Bohm 
> did, some non mechanist theory of mind.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation there are active and empty channels. 
If you want you might define empty channels as counterfactuals, but maybe 
with a different sense than the factual of an empty channel.

LC

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

*>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have
> demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses
> so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual
> problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to swallow.*
>

Exactly. If MWI isn't true then something even weirder is.

John K Clark

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

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Telmo Menezes]

On 29 July 2018 at 17:33,   wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:54:06 PM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra  wrote:
>> > My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal
>> > multiverse comprising of all possible observations.
>
>
> This is a conjecture for which no support exists. AG
>
>>
>> Here "observation" is a
>> > complete description that includes everything that is experienced which
>> > includes the identity of the observer. If my knee hurts, then the fact
>> > that
>> > it's me that is experiencing this, is actually part of the observation.
>> >
>> > There does not exist a fundamental space-time, and matter, energy etc.
>> > don't
>> > exist either. The only things that exist are mathematical objects. We
>> > can
>> > then consider operators as mappings from some set to itself as
>> > representing
>> > observers. The right kind of operator needed here is a mapping that is
>> > defined by the element of the set itself. So, if you choose an element
>> > of
>> > the set, this corresponds to a mapping that applied to that element will
>> > map
>> > to another element
>>
>> This mapping must be one-to-many, correct?
>>
>> Telmo.
>
>
> Are you one of the mathematical geniuses here who don't know what a map is?

I'm a very stable genius.

Telmo.

>  AG
>>
>>
>> > which then defines another mapping. The element of the
>> > set contains information that from the point of view of the mapping
>> > could
>> > look like a universe filled with matter and energy, and it then
>> > perceives
>> > itself as part of that universe.
>> >
>> > Saibal
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 28-07-2018 20:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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 [1]
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 EXPERI

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have
demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses
so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual
problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to swallow.

The nature of these problems is in my opinion best explained by this page:
https://www.readthesequences.com/IfManyWorldsHadComeFirst

Perhaps if you read it, you will have a better understanding of the source
of our mental illness.

Jason

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:26 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 9:10:57 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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”,

>>>
>>>
>>> Brent, I did not find this post. I answer here. “everything exists” has
>>> never been taken literally, in this everything-list. At the worst, we
>>> intent “every-consistent-things”. It has been clear that with
>>> computationalism, the everything is “all computations”, which is a
>>> constructive notion (cf the universal dovetailer, or the sigma_1 truth, …).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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

>>>
>>>
>>> Like the universal dovetailer, or its logical specification: which makes
>>> infinitely many proposition wrong. I am sure you know that no-one in this
>>> claim, neither from computationalism, nor from QM-without-collapse, that
>>> everything happen. That myth is a bit straw-man. Now, if you believe in
>>> 2+2=4 & Co., the many-computations is already in a tiny segment of the
>>> arithmetical (standard) model/truth, and indeed accessed by a very weak
>>> theory like Robinson Arithmetic. That is obviously consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Brent

 *I would rather call "everything happens" an illusion rather than a
>>> myth, and IMO it originates from the interpretation of the superposition
>>> th

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:54:06 PM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra > wrote: 
> > My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal 
> > multiverse comprising of all possible observations. 


This is a conjecture for which no support exists. AG
  

> Here "observation" is a 
> > complete description that includes everything that is experienced which 
> > includes the identity of the observer. If my knee hurts, then the fact 
> that 
> > it's me that is experiencing this, is actually part of the observation. 
> > 
> > There does not exist a fundamental space-time, and matter, energy etc. 
> don't 
> > exist either. The only things that exist are mathematical objects. We 
> can 
> > then consider operators as mappings from some set to itself as 
> representing 
> > observers. The right kind of operator needed here is a mapping that is 
> > defined by the element of the set itself. So, if you choose an element 
> of 
> > the set, this corresponds to a mapping that applied to that element will 
> map 
> > to another element 
>
> This mapping must be one-to-many, correct? 
>
> Telmo. 
>

Are you one of the mathematical geniuses here who don't know what a map is?

 AG 

>
> > which then defines another mapping. The element of the 
> > set contains information that from the point of view of the mapping 
> could 
> > look like a universe filled with matter and energy, and it then 
> perceives 
> > itself as part of that universe. 
> > 
> > Saibal 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 28-07-2018 20:24, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 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 [1] 
> >>> 
> >>> 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 CAU

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Telmo Menezes]

On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra  wrote:
> My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal
> multiverse comprising of all possible observations. Here "observation" is a
> complete description that includes everything that is experienced which
> includes the identity of the observer. If my knee hurts, then the fact that
> it's me that is experiencing this, is actually part of the observation.
>
> There does not exist a fundamental space-time, and matter, energy etc. don't
> exist either. The only things that exist are mathematical objects. We can
> then consider operators as mappings from some set to itself as representing
> observers. The right kind of operator needed here is a mapping that is
> defined by the element of the set itself. So, if you choose an element of
> the set, this corresponds to a mapping that applied to that element will map
> to another element

This mapping must be one-to-many, correct?

Telmo.

> which then defines another mapping. The element of the
> set contains information that from the point of view of the mapping could
> look like a universe filled with matter and energy, and it then perceives
> itself as part of that universe.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>
>
> On 28-07-2018 20:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 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 [1]
>>>
>>> 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&M 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&M EXAMPLE. AG
>>
>> It's you who's using the Joe the plumber argument to make it looks
>> like 

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[smitra]

My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal 
multiverse comprising of all possible observations. Here "observation" 
is a complete description that includes everything that is experienced 
which includes the identity of the observer. If my knee hurts, then the 
fact that it's me that is experiencing this, is actually part of the 
observation.


There does not exist a fundamental space-time, and matter, energy etc. 
don't exist either. The only things that exist are mathematical objects. 
We can then consider operators as mappings from some set to itself as 
representing observers. The right kind of operator needed here is a 
mapping that is defined by the element of the set itself. So, if you 
choose an element of the set, this corresponds to a mapping that applied 
to that element will map to another element which then defines another 
mapping. The element of the set contains information that from the point 
of view of the mapping could look like a universe filled with matter and 
energy, and it then perceives itself as part of that universe.


Saibal




On 28-07-2018 20:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

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 [1]
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&M 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&M 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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 9:10:57 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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”, 
>>>
>>
>>
>> Brent, I did not find this post. I answer here. “everything exists” has 
>> never been taken literally, in this everything-list. At the worst, we 
>> intent “every-consistent-things”. It has been clear that with 
>> computationalism, the everything is “all computations”, which is a 
>> constructive notion (cf the universal dovetailer, or the sigma_1 truth, …).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like the universal dovetailer, or its logical specification: which makes 
>> infinitely many proposition wrong. I am sure you know that no-one in this 
>> claim, neither from computationalism, nor from QM-without-collapse, that 
>> everything happen. That myth is a bit straw-man. Now, if you believe in 
>> 2+2=4 & Co., the many-computations is already in a tiny segment of the 
>> arithmetical (standard) model/truth, and indeed accessed by a very weak 
>> theory like Robinson Arithmetic. That is obviously consistent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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, *
>>
>>
>> Of course, that is not my case. I discover the “many computations” in the 
>> mechanist theory of mind, or just in arithmetic. I actually predicted that 
>> we must (when assuming Mechanism) see the many-history aspect of the 
>> physical reality by looking below our substitution level. At that time, and 
>> later, I will believe in the collapse axiom, and I took QM as a threat to 
>> Mechanism, until I read Everett (and DeWitt’s short paper in Physics 
>> Today). that, I consider QM as confirming Mechanism, and quite so after 
>> Aspect experiment. 
>> Y
>> Grayson, I don’t see how you can accept quantum mechanics, and not the 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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”, 
>>
>
>
> Brent, I did not find this post. I answer here. “everything exists” has 
> never been taken literally, in this everything-list. At the worst, we 
> intent “every-consistent-things”. It has been clear that with 
> computationalism, the everything is “all computations”, which is a 
> constructive notion (cf the universal dovetailer, or the sigma_1 truth, …).
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> Like the universal dovetailer, or its logical specification: which makes 
> infinitely many proposition wrong. I am sure you know that no-one in this 
> claim, neither from computationalism, nor from QM-without-collapse, that 
> everything happen. That myth is a bit straw-man. Now, if you believe in 
> 2+2=4 & Co., the many-computations is already in a tiny segment of the 
> arithmetical (standard) model/truth, and indeed accessed by a very weak 
> theory like Robinson Arithmetic. That is obviously consistent.
>
>
>
>
>> 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, *
>
>
> Of course, that is not my case. I discover the “many computations” in the 
> mechanist theory of mind, or just in arithmetic. I actually predicted that 
> we must (when assuming Mechanism) see the many-history aspect of the 
> physical reality by looking below our substitution level. At that time, and 
> later, I will believe in the collapse axiom, and I took QM as a threat to 
> Mechanism, until I read Everett (and DeWitt’s short paper in Physics 
> Today). that, I consider QM as confirming Mechanism, and quite so after 
> Aspect experiment. 
> Y
> Grayson, I don’t see how you can accept quantum mechanics, and not the 
> physical reality of the superpositions.
>

*It's really your problem, not mine. In QM we write a superposition for the 
wf of a system and use it to calculate the probability of measuring various 
eigenstates. A

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 14:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 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


I assume only that 2+2=4 independently of me. I believe that if I could die, 
that would have no consequence on the distribution of primes. I have to, 
because something like the Church-Turing thesis would have not any sense 
without such minimal realism. It is implicit in the proof of the existence of 
universal machineries (in the Turing sense).

Then I show why and how to derive, not the many-worlds but the whole of physics 
(including plausibly the universal wave) from the machine’s introspection. It 
works. (Until now).




>>> 
>>>  |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),

Yes. Everett assumes simply that the physicists obey to the physical laws.



> whereas for Copenhagen they disappear, some would say via collapse.


Yes. They have to assume dome dualism, and a physicist does no more obey to QM.



> 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


You have failed to explain me how you interpret the superposition in the case 
of photon in superposed state, or just the two slits, which as Feynman said 
contains the full “mystery” of QM.
I have some idea of you try to defend, but I certainly missed the details.



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

Re: My final word on the MWI --

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 20:36, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> 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.

We agree.


> In MWI the counterfactual continues to exist after the process as well.

That was my point. OK.



> In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation the counterfactual does not exist.

Here I disagree. They continue to exist in the potential so that it guides the 
particles correctly. It is empty of particles but still mimic a world with 
particles from the point of view of possible observers (lacking particles). The 
branches without particles must still mimic their internal observers correctly 
to guide correctly the particles. I agree with Deutsch when he says that the 
deBroglie-Bohm theory is a many-worlds theory, with one branches “more real” 
(having particles), and the other branches mimicked by the guiding potential. 
With mechanism, we cannot know if we are in the worlds with the particles or 
without, unless we postulate, as Bohm did, some non mechanist theory of mind.




> 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.

Physical existence is a relative notion depending on the observer. But we have 
the same in arithmetic with the comp. theory of mind.

Bruno




> 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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 28 Jul 2018, at 19:20, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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”?


Facts can make some theories more or less plausible, but cannot prove any 
theory, as we know since the dream argument. That is elementary epistemology.





>  
> > Seeing proves nothing.
> 
> It all comes down to asking myself one question, who am I going to believe, 
> you or my lying eyes?

Facts provide finite amount of information, where most theories extrapolate 
them to an infinity of proposition. Facts proves at most that we have 
here-and-now some experience.



> 
>  >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,
> 

There is no theory of computation which assumes anything physical. You talk 
about physical computations only, but even the books or papers on physical 
computations define them by “physical implementation of the usual standard 
mathematical notion. 

I asked you to provide a definition of a physical computation which do not 
borrow the mathematical notion (that you can find in basically all papers which 
found the subject, like in Davis “The Undecidable”), but you didn’t answer.

You continue to use Aristotle criteria of reality (observation), which begs the 
question in pur debate.




> nobody has ever proposed a mechanism about how it could work, not even a 
> implausible one.
> 

Just tell me how a universal Turing machine could distinguish an arithmetical 
reality from a physical one. Or explain what is the primitive matter, and how 
it selects the "conscious computations”. You cannot do that without abandoning 
computationalism.



> 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.
> 
Of course it can. “Doing” is a relative notion. I guess you mean that 
mathematics cannot create some ontological matters, but there has never been 
any evidence for such matter. Neither direct evidences of course, but when we 
look at the indirect evidences, like the many-computations below the 
substitution level, or the quantum logic structure of the observable, we get 
only confirmation of mechanism, including its immaterialism.


> 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.  
> 
> 

You don’t know that. It is your belief. You need to learn to doubt such belief, 
or you will look like a religious radical.




> >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.  


Well. I begin to suspect that you are a sort of priest, after all. Anyone 
mocking Theology is a convinced Aristotelian theologian. You believe in the God 
“matter”. In science, we keep our personal belief, and look at the difficulties 
of theories (which are belief + awareness that we might have to change them).

You talk like if you knew the truth in metaphysics.

Bruno





>  
> > 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, 
> Gree

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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”,


Brent, I did not find this post. I answer here. “everything exists” has never 
been taken literally, in this everything-list. At the worst, we intent 
“every-consistent-things”. It has been clear that with computationalism, the 
everything is “all computations”, which is a constructive notion (cf the 
universal dovetailer, or the sigma_1 truth, …).



> 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


Like the universal dovetailer, or its logical specification: which makes 
infinitely many proposition wrong. I am sure you know that no-one in this 
claim, neither from computationalism, nor from QM-without-collapse, that 
everything happen. That myth is a bit straw-man. Now, if you believe in 2+2=4 & 
Co., the many-computations is already in a tiny segment of the arithmetical 
(standard) model/truth, and indeed accessed by a very weak theory like Robinson 
Arithmetic. That is obviously consistent.



> 
> 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,

Of course, that is not my case. I discover the “many computations” in the 
mechanist theory of mind, or just in arithmetic. I actually predicted that we 
must (when assuming Mechanism) see the many-history aspect of the physical 
reality by looking below our substitution level. At that time, and later, I 
will believe in the collapse axiom, and I took QM as a threat to Mechanism, 
until I read Everett (and DeWitt’s short paper in Physics Today). After that, I 
consider QM as confirming Mechanism, and quite so after Aspect experiment. 

Grayson, I don’t see how you can accept quantum mechanics, and not the physical 
reality of the superpositions.  I am aware of many attempts to select branches 
in the Wave, but all either change QM and propose different theories (usually 
not confirmed, sometimes non sensical, …) or admit FTL, which makes not much 
sense to me.



> which generally have different probabilities, physically exist, or co-exist. 
> This is what I have been arguing he

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 06:42, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> 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.

OK. Good!



> 
> 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.


I try to not invoke April fools with bad news :) But I am corrected!

Bruno



> 
>> 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.

-- 
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.