Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell
>> inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one
>> polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the
>> photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a
>> third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like
>> nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails
>> would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the
>> photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by
>> attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a
>> violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a
>> "quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with one
>> photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure there
>> are not some other statistical effect at work between photons.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden
> variables, and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and
> p(X,D) is the joint distribution, then it assumes
>
>p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D)
>
> an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption.
>

The trouble with your fundamentalist assumption is that it does not work in
real physics. You have only to give a plausible dynamical model of how this
works for the Aspect experiment, say, and we will accept that you have a
point. But you are unable to do this. I would lay long odds on the fact
they you will be unable to do it, even given an infinite amount of time and
computing power.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMUsQ%3D%2BDxFG2S6BFTZiQoyGHsgabfLibaoxBJq%3DM13XQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:23:36 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the 
> probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a 
> pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in 
> thinking they can get around it.
>

 *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal 
 models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*

>>>
>>> You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an 
>>> experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday 
>>> superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be 
>>> logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but 
>>> in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on 
>>> polarizing sunglasses.
>>>
>>>
 *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996 
 ('Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that 
 you need is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the 
 following constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the 
 spins are going to be measured, the probability that the particles have 
 opposite spin is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and 
 H." 
 Price notes that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence 
 assumption.My problem with this has been that such a condition does not 
 specify any plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works, 
>>> that is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it 
>>> through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2.  For example 
>>> if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that 
>>> translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through 
>>> the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is 
>>> true Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to 
>>> 66.666%. But  3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So 
>>> local hidden variables are as dead as a doornail.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>> Religious fundamentalism.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell 
> inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one 
> polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the 
> photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a 
> third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like 
> nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails 
> would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the 
> photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by 
> attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a 
> violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a 
> "quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with one 
> photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure there 
> are not some other statistical effect at work between photons. 
>
> LC
>


Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden 
variables, and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and 
p(X,D) is the joint distribution, then it assumes

   p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D)

an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/965dcba8-01f4-4766-81ac-73da693e14cb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:23:36 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
 goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the 
 probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a 
 pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in 
 thinking they can get around it.

>>>
>>> *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal 
>>> models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*
>>>
>>
>> You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an 
>> experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday 
>> superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be 
>> logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but 
>> in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on 
>> polarizing sunglasses.
>>
>>
>>> *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996 
>>> ('Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that 
>>> you need is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the 
>>> following constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the 
>>> spins are going to be measured, the probability that the particles have 
>>> opposite spin is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and H." 
>>> Price notes that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence 
>>> assumption.My problem with this has been that such a condition does not 
>>> specify any plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*
>>
>>
>> Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works, that 
>> is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it 
>> through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2.  For example 
>> if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that 
>> translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through 
>> the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is true 
>> Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to 66.666%. But 
>>  3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So local hidden 
>> variables are as dead as a doornail.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
>
> Religious fundamentalism.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell 
inequality, to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one 
polarizer is set 30 degrees relative to the other, then think of the 
photons as polarized in the way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a 
third of a right angle, and so if we think of the photons as being like 
nails aligned in a certain direction, then at least 1/3rd of these nails 
would be deflected away. This is why an upper bound of 2/3rds of the 
photons in a classical setting will make it through, or less will by 
attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result gives 3/4. This is a 
violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it is found in a 
"quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments work with one 
photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to insure there 
are not some other statistical effect at work between photons. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d420aa86-0f98-4abb-ab41-13db04992c5c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the 
>>> probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a 
>>> pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in 
>>> thinking they can get around it.
>>>
>>
>> *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal 
>> models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*
>>
>
> You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an 
> experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday 
> superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be 
> logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but 
> in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on 
> polarizing sunglasses.
>
>
>> *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996 
>> ('Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that 
>> you need is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the 
>> following constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the 
>> spins are going to be measured, the probability that the particles have 
>> opposite spin is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and H." 
>> Price notes that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence 
>> assumption.My problem with this has been that such a condition does not 
>> specify any plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*
>
>
> Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works, that 
> is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it 
> through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2.  For example 
> if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that 
> translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through 
> the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is true 
> Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to 66.666%. But 
>  3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So local hidden 
> variables are as dead as a doornail.
>
> John K Clark
>


Religious fundamentalism.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e517b70-fcb4-45fb-85aa-0010f276fdcd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:18 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> The dependency of the initial and final states means the
>> probabilities are classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a
>> pretty iron clad result and I am not sure why some people persist in
>> thinking they can get around it.
>>
>
> *> That would be a useful result because it would put these retrocausal
> models to rest permanently. But how do you prove this?*
>

You prove it the same way physicists prove anything, by performing an
experiment. It makes no difference if Quantum Mechanics is someday
superseded by a better theory, if probabilities are classical it would be
logically impossible to ever violate Bell's inequality even in theory, but
in actuality it is quite easy to do so, you do it every time you put on
polarizing sunglasses.


> *> The retrocausal argument takes the form given by Price in 1996 ('Time's
> Arrow and Archimedes' Point, p.246-7). Price notes that all that you need
> is that the production of the particle pairs is governed by the following
> constraint: "In those directions G and H (if any) in which the spins are
> going to be measured, the probability that the particles have opposite spin
> is cos^2(alpha/2), where alpha is the angle between G and H." Price notes
> that such a condition explicitly violates Bell's independence assumption.My
> problem with this has been that such a condition does not specify any
> plausible dynamics that could operate in this way.*


Since 1809 we've know from experiment that Malus's law always works, that
is to say the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it
through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2.  For example
if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75; if light is made of photons that
translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through
the filter is 75%. However if *ANY* local hidden variable theory is true
Bell proved that the probability must be less than or equal to 66.666%. But
 3/4 is greater than 2/3, so Bell's inequality is violated. So local hidden
variables are as dead as a doornail.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3knYG61NWhQVDDjDu3mW2OB2wvF-8yZ4NFrFXaKmbr5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:42:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/13/2019 6:32 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 08:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
>>  
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:53 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 10 Jun 2019, at 08:54, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>> If retrocausality is right, then QM itself is certainly wrong. In the 
 EPR situation, the singlet state is rotationally symmetric in standard QM, 
 and this cannot be the case if that state is dependent on the future 
 polariser settings. Conversely, if QM is right, retrocausality is 
 impossible.


 If QM with collapse is right, I would understand and agree. That is why 
 Deutsch see the “retrocausality” has a semantic variant of the many-worlds 
 interpretations, but I have not entirely figure out if this makes sense

>>>
>>> It makes no sense at all! Deutsch has gone completely off the rails over 
>>> quantum mechanics. He is essentially abandoning the theory as it currently 
>>> stands. The argument from symmetry is, to my mind, a total killer of any 
>>> retrocausal explanation -- retrocausality must destroy the very symmetry 
>>> that is at the heart of the QM predictions for the singlet state, Collapse 
>>> and many worlds are all irrelevant to this argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice if you could elaborate on this.
>>>
>>
>> The basis of retrocausality is the observation that there is no problem 
>> with non-local influences in QM if the initial state is allowed to depend 
>> on the final state, namely, on the settings of the polarisers in the EPR 
>> experiment. The QM representation of the singlet state is rotationally 
>> symmetric (about the propagation axis). This symmetry is central to the 
>> derivation of the correlations that violate the Bell inequalities. If the 
>> initial state is made to depend on the final polarizer settings, then the 
>> rotational symmetry is lost. So the basis for the original correlation 
>> predictions is lost, and the theory becomes incoherent.
>>
>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the singlet 
>> state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM is 
>> inconsistent with retrocausality.  It might be possible to restore the 
>> required rotational symmetry in a wider context (taking the remote 
>> polarisers into account), but QM does not do this. Retrocausality is a 
>> different theory, it is not QM. And that different theory has not been 
>> coherently worked out.
>>
>> The rotational symmetry of the initial singlet state is independent of 
>> whether you have a collapse model, or have Many Worlds. The difference 
>> between these two only comes into play when you include the final 
>> measurements. So it is the retrocausal model that requires collapse -- 
>> retrocausality cannot work coherently in a many worlds setting.
>>
>>  Bruce
>>
>
> The dependency of the initial and final states means the probabilities are 
> classical and will obey the Bell inequality. This is a pretty iron clad 
> result and I am not sure why some people persist in thinking they can get 
> around it.
>
>
> If you consider a multiverse view in which there are an ensemble of 
> results (whose correlations violate Bell's inequality) and then you just 
> "play the multiverse movie backwards" will not the many multiverse results 
> interfere and re-cohere to produce the singlet state?  The multiverse is 
> non-local and so can violate Bell's inequality.  I agree with Bruce that 
> this doesn't provide a mechanism, but given the time symmetry of 
> Schoedinger's equation I don't see that it's a different theory.
>
> Brent
>

I think you are thinking of the MWI, not so much the multiverse. 

Quantum mechanics is time reversal invariant, so rewinding the dynamics is 
not the issue. The issue is whether there are causal propagations in both 
directions. In other words we generally think there is a causal direction 
from past to future. In QFT and the path integral we compute the amplitudes 
of time ordered fields. We do not though think of there being both forwards 
and backwards propagators, retarded and advanced gauge potentials and the 
rest. If there are retarded and advanced potentials, then we can write a 
potential as a vector sum of these. This would mean a spacelike propagation 
of information. Thus if you were to say nonlocality is constructed this way 
it would ultimately mean there is classical information that would obey the 
Bell inequalities. 

With cosmology things are a bit stranger. For one we really do not know if 
these other cosmologies or pocket worlds are not just off-shell parts of 
the amplitude, where there may only be one on shell set of states which is 
this pocket world. This might be the case if the quantum description is 
that of a pure state. The multi

Re: The Physics of Mind and Thought

[Philip Thrift]

I'm not sure how this relates the existence of (and the vocabulary of) real 
experiential entities.

e.g. 
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf

@philipthrift

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 1:21:24 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
> Ooops, for got to upload the paper.
> Ronald
>
>>  
>>
>  
>>
>  
>>
>  
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/770ccf56-64b9-460b-8240-8d1c95a21042%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology) '

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 6 May 2019, at 20:34, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 3 May 2019, at 20:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/3/2019 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> The current darkness comes from the separation of theology from
>> science, making exact science inexact and human science inhuman.
>> >>
>> >> Religion is the only goal,
>> >
>> > That's the kind of absolutist pronouncement that priests and despots
>> have used to justify oppression and atrocities from auto-de-fe' to
>> Buchenwald.
>>
>> I could have put that truth, or meaning, or value, is the only goal, but,
>> normally, with what follow, i.e. “science is the only mean”, people should
>> understand that this assume the minimum spiritual maturity of those who
>> knows that in the religion domain, the argument-per-authority is not just
>> not valid, it is catastrophic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Science is the only mean.
>> >
>> > And every person is an end.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Which should invite to be skeptic on all metaphysics which threat the
>> existence of persons.
>>
>> Theology is today full of BS, not because theology is BS, only because
>> theology has been separated from science, with the goal to use it as a way
>> to control people. The prohibition of medication, and the idea that a
>> government can have a word on this, in place of you or your doctor, is the
>> same phenomenon. It is how liars get power, by appropriating the domain out
>> of the serious and modest inquirers. The USSR did that with genetics,
>> because theology was already just forbidden, and materialism (even the
>> strong version) was obligatory. It is always the use of the argument per
>> authority, in place of questions and other questions.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> I just found this quote by Godel, where he concluded mostly the same:
>
> There would be no danger of an atomic war if advances in history, the
> science of right and of state, philosophy, psychology, literature, art,
> etc. were as great as in physics. But instead of such progress, one is
> struck by significant regresses in many of the spiritual sciences. [123]
>
>
>  http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html
>
> Jason
>
>
> The consequences of Mechanism assess many statement made by Gödel,
> including his skepticism toward naturalism. Unfortunately, like many, he
> taught that mechanism was a trick to defend materialism and naturalism,
> where, as I try to explain, mechanism and materialism are at the antipodes
> of each other.
>
> Then Gödel was too much a mathematical realist. He was a set realist, on
> which I am rather neutral. With mechanism, finite set realism is assured,
> but the axiom of infinity is probably inconsistent at the ontological
> level. It would reintroduce too many “histories” and the white rabbits
> would come back (not that we can be sure they are eliminated with
> Mechanism, or even with the inferred quantum mechanics).
>

I found this quote by Godel regarding set realism. It seems he believed in
sets because you need them to prove certain facts about the integers:


"if mathematical objects are our creations, then evidently integers and
sets of integers will have to be two different creations, the first of
which does not necessitate the second. However, in order to prove certain
propositions about integers, the concept of set of integers is necessary.
So here, in order to find out what properties *we* have given to certain
objects of our imagination, [[we]] must first create certain other
objects--a very strange situation indeed!"


Does this require finite or infinite set theory? Is either compatible with
mechanism?

Jason



> Gödel, like all those at the origin of Mathematical Logic (Boole, de
> Morgan, Peirce (the father)), was interested in theology, as illustrated by
> his formalisation of the Ontological Argument. Smullyan too. But, as Cohen
> explained, the theological motivation of mathematical logic has been forced
> to be hidden to permit the professionalisation of mathematics in the 18th
> century.
>
> All sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in
> any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act of faith.
>
> Each period of the human history where theology belonged to science have
> been enlightened, peaceful and prosperous. When theology is done with the
> scientific attitude, nobody agrees except on the necessity of research and
> dialogs. Once God is given a literal name, we get the lies, the war, the
> poverty. We get the feeling of superiority and inferiority, and the humans
> stop to recognise themselves in the others, leading to paranoïa and
> hysteria.
>
> It is important, and unclear from the quite of Gödel, if he realised that
> when theology is back to science, we are just able to admit our ignorance,
> and become modest in the f

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:52 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *In (serious) metaphysics, a word like “cuckoo clock” is not well
> defined.*


Then it is quite clear that serious metaphysics is not very serious.
Bozo metaphysics
would be a better term.

> *If by cuckoo clock you mean the physical object* [...]


By cuckoo clock I mean the thing that I'm pointing at that is hanging on
the wall right there under your nose.


> *> then my answer is NO.*


Then whenever you hit the keys on your computer in a certain order and as a
result "mechanism" appears on my computer's screen that ASCII sequence
conveys no information to me whatsoever.

>> Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism?
>
>
> >* Same answer as above,*


By the way, no Turing Machine can determine if a particular Tritium atom
will decay in the next 12.32 years, the best it can do is give you the odds.
To me that indicates physics is in the drivers seat that determines the
nature of the world, mathematics is just a language that tries to describe
it.

*> The physical object “cuckoo clock” is not a being, with Digital
> Mechanism.*


A cuckoo clock is not a being? I agree but what does that have to do with
the price of tea in China?

>> Oh for christ sake, then EVERYTHING is a informal poorly defined notion.
>> And actually that would be OK because fundamentally definitions are not
>> important in language, examples are.
>
>
> > *For practical application you are right. *But when we assume mechanism
> and sinus metaphysics, the “obvious” is no more obvious.


Then the obvious thing to do is not to assume "sinus metaphysics", whatever
the hell that is.

*> But I made clear that “Mechanism” is the act of faith of saying yes to a
> doctor who propose a digital physical body/brain.*


That is not an act of faith, there is hard physical evidence to think it
may be true. We don't know exactly how matter produce our individual
consciousness but we do know it can't be by looking at a hydrogen atom and
seeing our name scratched on it because science can see no difference
between one hydrogen atom and another.

*> you can search for my posts where I have explained this already, perhaps
> before you were participating on this list. *


Oh we're back to that are we. For at least 5 years and probably closer to
10 you've been telling me about this wonderful post of yours written a long
time ago in a galaxy far far away that brilliantly answers all my
objections to your philosophy. The trouble is I've never seen that post and
I don't know anybody who has even claimed to have seen it. I do however
know somebody who has claimed to have seen Bigfoot.

>> you are unable to provide a single specific example of something that
>> has that quality or single specific example of something that does not. And
>> that means you literally don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>
> >  *Avoid those ad hominem comment.*


It's not ad hominem it's a factual observation. If somebody is unable to
give even one specific example of what they are talking about then
they *LITERALLY
*don't know what they are talking about.

> *you have exemplify that you are a believer in primary matter or
> physicalism,*


I have no idea if I believe in primary matter and physicalism or not
because you've never made it clear what you mean by the terms.


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *>> > Here is a machine SKKHere is a computation SKKK KK(KK) K*
>>
>>
>> > I see. So 3 squiggles is called a "machine" and 11 squiggles is called
>> a "computation”.
>
>
> > *Here you confuse SKK with “SKK”.*


I see. So 5 squiggles are called a "machine" not 3 as previously stated.
Are 11 squiggles still called a "computation”?

>* We implement a function from N to N by putting the input in the register
> 1, and we ask that the output is put also in register 1. If the function
> has more than one argument, we put the argument in the register 1, and 2,
> etc.*


You confuse register and "register". One is an electronic or mechanical
device that obeys the laws of physics and the other is an ASCII sequence.

> Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism?
>
>


> *> With the precision I have added above, the answer is NO.*



> Is a roulette wheel a mechanism?
>
>
> *> NO.*
>


> Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism?
>
>
> *> NO.*
>


> Is the multiplication table a mechanism?
>
>

*> NO.*


And yet SKK (or maybe it was "SKK") *IS* a mechanism!  Well, I still have
no idea what you mean by mechanism but after reading in the above all the
things it is not I have to conclude that whatever you mean by the word it
can't be of any use to anyone for anything.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2iAcoQKUT7MSmp

Re: The Physics of Mind and Thought

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Where is the paper ?

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61c92023-425f-4faf-ac40-1f2a913d7b09%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Physics of Mind and Thought

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:54:59 AM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Abstract
>
> Regular physics is unsatisfactory in that it fails to take into 
> consideration phenomena relating to mind and meaning, whereas on
>
> the other side of the cultural divide such constructs have been studied in 
> detail. This paper discusses a possible synthesis of the
>
> two perspectives. Crucial is the way systems realising mental function can 
> develop step by step on the basis of the scaffolding
>
> mechanisms of Hoffmeyer, in a way that can be clarified by consideration 
> of the phenomenon of language. Taking into account
>
> such constructs, aspects of which are apparent even with simple systems 
> such as acoustically excited water, as with cymatics,
>
> potentially opens up a window into a world of mentality excluded from 
> conventional physics as a result of the primary focus of
> the latter on the matter-like aspect of reality.
>
>  
>  
> Comments?
> Ronald
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>

You might want to check out

*Philip Goff*
*My research focuses on how to integrate consciousness into our scientific 
worldview.*
http://www.philipgoffphilosophy.com/
https://twitter.com/philip_goff


*Hedda Hassel Mørch*
*I work on the fundamental nature of matter and consciousness.*
https://heddahasselmorch.com/
https://twitter.com/heddamorch 

And I dabble in it:

*Experience processing*
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/

I had not heard of Jesper Hoffmeyer before.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2fb912a-7387-46b1-b9d0-505f336d6932%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:21:04 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:23 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
 https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/


>>>
> The incomprehensible jumble that follows bears no relation to the EPR 
> experiment with entangled particles in the singlet state. As I said, if you 
> make up your own arbitrary dynamics, of course retrocausality can result in 
> non-classical correlations. But you have to do this with real physics, not 
> made up worlds.
>
> Bruce
>



That's very quaint, but as Sabine Hossenfelder writes, the future of 
theoretical physics is in (new kinds of) programming, not (current) 
mathematics.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/

@philipthrift


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f4eb1f0-d403-404a-b3fd-db4e9150b5d1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:23 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:13:54 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:55 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:10:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the
>> singlet state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard 
>> QM is
>> inconsistent with retrocausality.
>>
>
>
>>  Bruce
>>
>
>
> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God
> wrote into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring 
> to. The
> one and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious 
> fundamentalists?
>
> I don't see this in:
>

 It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past
 to the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly
 rules out retrocausality.

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path
>>> integral;
>>>
>>
>> No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical
>> situation, so it can't be consistent.
>>
>>
>>> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not
>>> ruled out.
>>>
>>
>> It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism.
>> So in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a
>> different theory.
>>
>> Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet
>> state made up of two spin half particles?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
> You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.
>


 OK. You do that and show how it depends on the future polarizer
 settings in a way that gives comprehensible dynamics.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> I did for The EPR experiment
>>>
>>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
>>>
>>>
>> Price's Ypiaria is not quantum mechanics, and no quantum dynamics are
>> specified. Besides, do it here and don't just post links to
>> incomprehensible notes or references to books.
>>
>> If you make up your own dynamics, you can presumably get any results you
>> want. But the singlet state is well-defined quantum mechanically, and it is
>> that state that is to give the EPR correlations. I think the problem that
>> you are going to face with any attempt at a retrocausal explanation is that
>> the singlet state is independent of the way in which it was formed. But for
>> retrocausality to work, the initial state must depend on things in the
>> future -- i.e., the state must depend on the way in which it is formed.
>> This is not achievable by simply adding the CPT mirror state.
>>
>> So you have yet to answer the crucial question.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
The incomprehensible jumble that follows bears no relation to the EPR
experiment with entangled particles in the singlet state. As I said, if you
make up your own arbitrary dynamics, of course retrocausality can result in
non-classical correlations. But you have to do this with real physics, not
made up worlds.

Bruce


> The EPR experiment
>
> There is a source S that simultaneously emits two particles a and b that
> travel from emitter S to detectors A (in one direction) and B (in the
> opposite direction) respectively. (See picture
> .) In the orange
> world, there are the counterparts to S, A, B: -S, -A, -B. There are not
> two, but four RFPs to consider: path(a), path(-a), path(b), path(-b).
> path(a) and path(b) are in our time perspective, path(-a) and path(-b) in
> the CPT-reversed perspective: Orange particles going from -A and -B arrive
> at -S at the same time. (In the orange world, -a and -b are absorbed by -S.)
>
> *a and -a (and b and -b) never “meet”. They just share hidden (logical)
> variables.*
>
> *Note*: “Bell’s Theorem requires the assumption that hidden variables are
> independent of future measurement settings.” – Backward causation, hidden
> variables and the meaning of completeness
> , Huw Price. But this assumption is
> ruled out here, so particles will have hidden variables.
>
> The example used here is from Huw Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’
> Point: *New Directio

The Physics of Mind and Thought

[ronaldheld]

Abstract

Regular physics is unsatisfactory in that it fails to take into 
consideration phenomena relating to mind and meaning, whereas on

the other side of the cultural divide such constructs have been studied in 
detail. This paper discusses a possible synthesis of the

two perspectives. Crucial is the way systems realising mental function can 
develop step by step on the basis of the scaffolding

mechanisms of Hoffmeyer, in a way that can be clarified by consideration of 
the phenomenon of language. Taking into account

such constructs, aspects of which are apparent even with simple systems 
such as acoustically excited water, as with cymatics,

potentially opens up a window into a world of mentality excluded from 
conventional physics as a result of the primary focus of
the latter on the matter-like aspect of reality.

 
 
Comments?
Ronald

 

 

 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5435442-d88a-4b24-a3a0-240b1ece1767%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What is computing?

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Computers don't exist. "Computers" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:10:31 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Only computers do computing. Programming a computer is not “computing” per 
> se, although it is something which emerges from computations in arithmetic 
> when we assume the mechanist hypothesis. 
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5d2bedeb-bae1-47f6-a9c7-fa2ee8453e49%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What is computing?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, at 14:39, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2019, at 11:09, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, at 20:22, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:54:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 6 Jun 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> [... *stuff on libertarianism*]
> 
> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation…
 
 Just to be exact. My working hypothesis is “Indexical Digital Mechanism”. 
 It is “YD + CT” to sum it all.
 
 My contribution is a theorem: which says that if we assume Mechanism, it 
 is undecidable if there is more than the additive and multiplicative 
 structure of the natural numbers, or Turing equivalent.
 
 But most things are not computation. The mixing of the codes of the total 
 computable functions and the strictly partial one IS NOT computable, yet 
 “arithmetically real” and this will have a role in the “first person 
 indeterminacy” measure problem.
 
 If Mechanism is true, very few things are computable, or even deducible in 
 powerful theory. Both consciousness and matter are typically not 
 computable, yet absolutely real, for all Lôbian machines, from their 
 phenomenological perspective.
 
 Every is numbers, or computations, which means we can limit the 
 arithmetical reality to the sigma_1 sentences eventually, but that means 
 only that the fundamental ontology is very simple. The interesting things, 
 including god, consciousness and matter all get their meaning and laws 
 from the phenomenological perspective.
 
 So, to say that with mechanism, that 'everything is computation’ is a bit 
 misleading, as the phenomenologically apprehensible things will all be non 
 computable, and yet are *real*, as we all know.
 
 For consciousness you need only to agree that it is
 
 True,
 Knowable,
 Indubitable,
 (Immediate),
 
 And
 
 Non-definable,
 Non Rationally believable
>> 
>> Wait, this last one is new!
> 
> I use sometimes “non rationally believable” for non provable. Usually I use 
> “non believable”, but I am usually in a context where I made clear I talk 
> about self-referentially correct machine, which are rational in the sense 
> that their believability is close for the usual first order logical rules, 
> and that they have few simple beliefs, like 2+2=4 or KKK = K, etc.

Ok.
Couldn't you then say that consciousness is definable as the thing that has all 
the above properties (removing non-definable)?

> 
> 
> 
>> What do you mean by "non rationally believable"? Isn't this contradictory 
>> with "indubitable”?
> 
> Not for consciousness. The indubitability is a first person person experience.
> 
> Believable is modelled by Gödel’s bewesibar (the one modality which obeys to 
> G and G*), but the indubitability is on the first person level: it is 
> modelled by ([]p & p)’s logic, i.e. S4Grz. That one find its self-consistency 
> obvious.
> 
> OK?

Ok, but wouldn't it then be more clear to say "non-provable" in all contexts?

Telmo.

> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Telmo.
>> 
 
 Together with the invariance for some digital transformation at some 
 description level.
 
 
 
 
> and so everything must be explainable in terms of computation.
 
 In terms of addition and multiplication, you can understand where 
 consciousness come from, why it differentiates, and the transfinite paths 
 it get involved into, and why Reality is beyond the computable, yet 
 partially computable, partially and locally manageable, partially 
 observable, partially and locally inductively inferable. Etc.
 
 Even just the arithmetical reality is far beyond the computable, but from 
 inside, the sigma_1 (ultra-mini-tniy part of that reality) is already 
 bigger than we could hope to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal. 
 
 Digital mechanism, well understood (meaning with understand the quasi 
 direct link between the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness, (which I 
 have explained many times, but I can do it again), is constructively 
 antireductionist theory. The Löb-Gödelian machines, those who obeys to the 
 probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any 
 complete theory anyone could conceive about them.
 
 Only numbers at the ontological level, OK, but the crazily interesting 
 things appears at the phenomenological levels, where things are no more 
 very computable at all.
 
 Bruno
 
 
>>> 
>>> Today is the last day of *UCNC 2019*.
>>> 
>>>  Program: http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/program.html 
>>> 
>>> What the conference is about can be summed up as
>>> 
>>> *What is computing*
>>>  if the CT thesis [ 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%9

Re: What is computing?

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>>
>>> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> Point out a place where consciousness exists, and there is no brain there.
>>
>>
>> Consciousness does not belong to a category of object having a place, 
>> like 2+2=4. The idea of physical place is dreamed by the relative numbers, 
>> to be short. This makes sense only if the computational histories ahem the 
>> right relative measure, and thanks to the material modes obeying some 
>> quantum logic, this makes sense … up to now.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> I know I can specify where *my consciousness* is, via an address on 
> Google or even narrowed down perhaps to GPS coordinates of a 3d box that my 
> head is in.
>
>
> What if some physical process in some far away galaxy emulate you, exactly 
> in the states you are living right now? 
>
> Then, eventually, a notion like “self-location” is “dreamed” by universal 
> number in virtue of their arithmetical relations, and this in infinitely 
> many computations. The “many world” spect of quantum mechanics is well 
> explained (up to now) with that self-multiplication intrinsic to arithmetic 
> (or any Turing equivalent reality).
>
>
>
>
>
> Where other's consciousnesses are I guess are traveling through space via 
> astral projection.
>
>
>
> With mechanism, planets, stars, atoms and galaxies belongs more plausibly 
> to the “head” of the universal numbers.
>
> Bruno
>
>
That there could be a (approximately-enough)  "Phil" molecule-for-molecule 
copy out there is a heady thought.

@philipthrift


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/625bfa44-7045-4d15-b4dc-6c4ce211d0ca%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:01:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 19:54, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> *"Most theories in science are implicitly second order theory, which, 
> unless restricted in some way, are usually not “Turing decidable” or 
> “Turing emulable".*
>
>
>
> What current scientific theory is not Turing-emulable? 
>
>
> Arithmetic (the set of true sentences), or just second order arithmetic. 
> Machine can do that, but not in an algorithmic way, like us. 
>
>
>
> Everything I know of what computational physicists, chemists, biologists 
> do they do with standard programming (FORTRAN, C, Python, ...) on 
> conventional computers. They simulate the dozens of different black hole 
> theories on supercomputers. They make simulations of critters (OpenWorm).
>
>
> Simulation is not emulation. You cannot simulate the observation of the 
> spin of an electron, due to the “exact randomness” of QM, but of course, 
> you can approximate it with some pseudo-random algorithm, or recover the 
> experience of indeterminacy by emulating yourself in some self-duplication. 
> No, if the recovering is on all computations, that becomes impossible to do.
>
>
>
>
> *Current** theories* of science (actually written down in articles in 
> TeX:Math) are all Turing-emulable, as far as I know. They are all 
> "replicated" in programs on conventional computers.
>
>
> You cannot simulate the arithmetical reality. We can simulate the quantum 
> computation with a Turing machine, but we cannot emulate any physical 
> process, baceuse with mechanism, that would require being able to emulate 
> the entire universal dovetailing at each step of the execution. This comes 
> from the first person indeterminacy on all computations.
>
> Bruno
>
>

Don't think arithmetic is a scientific theory. I just mean theories written 
in science articles like GR, QM,  black hole, chemical molecular, cellular 
biological, that sort of stuff.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe154c7c-5073-41bf-b1bf-dd7c3d4683f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:13:54 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:55 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:10:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the 
> singlet state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard 
> QM is 
> inconsistent with retrocausality. 
>
  

>  Bruce
>


 There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote 
 into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The 
 one 
 and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?

 I don't see this in:

>>>
>>> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past 
>>> to the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly 
>>> rules out retrocausality.
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>>
>> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;
>>
>
> No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical 
> situation, so it can't be consistent.
>  
>
>> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not 
>> ruled out.
>>
>
> It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism. 
> So in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a 
> different theory.
>
> Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet 
> state made up of two spin half particles?
>
> Bruce 
>



 You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.

>>>
>>>
>>> OK. You do that and show how it depends on the future polarizer settings 
>>> in a way that gives comprehensible dynamics.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> I did for The EPR experiment
>>
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
>>
>>
> Price's Ypiaria is not quantum mechanics, and no quantum dynamics are 
> specified. Besides, do it here and don't just post links to 
> incomprehensible notes or references to books.
>
> If you make up your own dynamics, you can presumably get any results you 
> want. But the singlet state is well-defined quantum mechanically, and it is 
> that state that is to give the EPR correlations. I think the problem that 
> you are going to face with any attempt at a retrocausal explanation is that 
> the singlet state is independent of the way in which it was formed. But for 
> retrocausality to work, the initial state must depend on things in the 
> future -- i.e., the state must depend on the way in which it is formed. 
> This is not achievable by simply adding the CPT mirror state.
>
> So you have yet to answer the crucial question.
>
> Bruce
>


The EPR experiment

There is a source S that simultaneously emits two particles a and b that 
travel from emitter S to detectors A (in one direction) and B (in the 
opposite direction) respectively. (See picture 
.) In the orange 
world, there are the counterparts to S, A, B: -S, -A, -B. There are not 
two, but four RFPs to consider: path(a), path(-a), path(b), path(-b). 
path(a) and path(b) are in our time perspective, path(-a) and path(-b) in 
the CPT-reversed perspective: Orange particles going from -A and -B arrive 
at -S at the same time. (In the orange world, -a and -b are absorbed by -S.)

*a and -a (and b and -b) never “meet”. They just share hidden (logical) 
variables.*

*Note*: “Bell’s Theorem requires the assumption that hidden variables are 
independent of future measurement settings.” – Backward causation, hidden 
variables and the meaning of completeness 
, Huw Price. But this assumption is 
ruled out here, so particles will have hidden variables.

The example used here is from Huw Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point
: *New Directions for the Physics of Time* (beginning pg. 213) about what 
happens on a planet called Ypiaria (“Pronounced, of course, ‘E-P-aria’.”)

The scenario here is that there is a pair of twins a and b who depart from 
S and travel to A and B respectively. At each place A and B, there is an 
interrogator who asks them respectively a question.
One question only could be asked, to be chosen at random from a list of 
three:
(1) Are you a murderer?
(2) Are you a thief?
(3) Have you committed adultery?

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:55 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:10:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:


 As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the
 singlet state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard 
 QM is
 inconsistent with retrocausality.

>>>
>>>
  Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote
>>> into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The 
>>> one
>>> and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>>>
>>> I don't see this in:
>>>
>>
>> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past
>> to the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly
>> rules out retrocausality.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;
>

 No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical
 situation, so it can't be consistent.


> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not
> ruled out.
>

 It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism.
 So in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a
 different theory.

 Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet
 state made up of two spin half particles?

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK. You do that and show how it depends on the future polarizer settings
>> in a way that gives comprehensible dynamics.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> I did for The EPR experiment
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
>
>
Price's Ypiaria is not quantum mechanics, and no quantum dynamics are
specified. Besides, do it here and don't just post links to
incomprehensible notes or references to books.

If you make up your own dynamics, you can presumably get any results you
want. But the singlet state is well-defined quantum mechanically, and it is
that state that is to give the EPR correlations. I think the problem that
you are going to face with any attempt at a retrocausal explanation is that
the singlet state is independent of the way in which it was formed. But for
retrocausality to work, the initial state must depend on things in the
future -- i.e., the state must depend on the way in which it is formed.
This is not achievable by simply adding the CPT mirror state.

So you have yet to answer the crucial question.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS%3DvQ27pg20kFLfci8xB580sBmq04L6Xk2wDY2VL5BejQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: What is computing?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 20:07, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Working software developers don't do "computing”.

Only computers do computing. Programming a computer is not “computing” per se, 
although it is something which emerges from computations in arithmetic when we 
assume the mechanist hypothesis. 

Bruno


> They just do get-set. mail.getMessage(), mail.setMessage("Wow! Super-duper 
> computing!");
> 
> On Thursday, 13 June 2019 15:44:22 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Also,without computing, you would not been able to send your post on this 
> list. You are using a machine doing computing all the times. So what you say 
> looks very weird.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c15f2ae9-2972-44ca-9f07-8828a2270c07%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0D8803C9-1C46-49B7-84FD-503A11C8CAEE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: What is computing?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>> 
>> Point out a place where consciousness exists, and there is no brain there.
> 
> Consciousness does not belong to a category of object having a place, like 
> 2+2=4. The idea of physical place is dreamed by the relative numbers, to be 
> short. This makes sense only if the computational histories ahem the right 
> relative measure, and thanks to the material modes obeying some quantum 
> logic, this makes sense … up to now.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> I know I can specify where my consciousness is, via an address on Google or 
> even narrowed down perhaps to GPS coordinates of a 3d box that my head is in.

What if some physical process in some far away galaxy emulate you, exactly in 
the states you are living right now? 

Then, eventually, a notion like “self-location” is “dreamed” by universal 
number in virtue of their arithmetical relations, and this in infinitely many 
computations. The “many world” spect of quantum mechanics is well explained (up 
to now) with that self-multiplication intrinsic to arithmetic (or any Turing 
equivalent reality).




> 
> Where other's consciousnesses are I guess are traveling through space via 
> astral projection.


With mechanism, planets, stars, atoms and galaxies belongs more plausibly to 
the “head” of the universal numbers.

Bruno

> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9321e04d-d1ee-4f2e-9c21-78b202b76b64%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73763F31-5346-4B77-AEFC-E4FAED128281%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 19:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 8:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> "Most theories in science are implicitly second order theory, which, unless 
> restricted in some way, are usually not “Turing decidable” or “Turing 
> emulable".
> 
> 
> 
> What current scientific theory is not Turing-emulable?

Arithmetic (the set of true sentences), or just second order arithmetic. 
Machine can do that, but not in an algorithmic way, like us. 



> Everything I know of what computational physicists, chemists, biologists do 
> they do with standard programming (FORTRAN, C, Python, ...) on conventional 
> computers. They simulate the dozens of different black hole theories on 
> supercomputers. They make simulations of critters (OpenWorm).

Simulation is not emulation. You cannot simulate the observation of the spin of 
an electron, due to the “exact randomness” of QM, but of course, you can 
approximate it with some pseudo-random algorithm, or recover the experience of 
indeterminacy by emulating yourself in some self-duplication. No, if the 
recovering is on all computations, that becomes impossible to do.



> 
> Current theories of science (actually written down in articles in TeX:Math) 
> are all Turing-emulable, as far as I know. They are all "replicated" in 
> programs on conventional computers.

You cannot simulate the arithmetical reality. We can simulate the quantum 
computation with a Turing machine, but we cannot emulate any physical process, 
baceuse with mechanism, that would require being able to emulate the entire 
universal dovetailing at each step of the execution. This comes from the first 
person indeterminacy on all computations.

Bruno


> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72c23ea9-5e22-478e-a27e-562f4f3deaa8%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70E8F687-6C59-4795-9907-D2423D69A55F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:10:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the 
>>> singlet state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM 
>>> is 
>>> inconsistent with retrocausality. 
>>>
>>  
>>
>>>  Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote 
>> into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The 
>> one 
>> and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>>
>> I don't see this in:
>>
>
> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to 
> the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly 
> rules 
> out retrocausality.
>
> Bruce 
>


 But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;

>>>
>>> No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical 
>>> situation, so it can't be consistent.
>>>  
>>>
 there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not 
 ruled out.

>>>
>>> It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism. So 
>>> in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a 
>>> different theory.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet 
>>> state made up of two spin half particles?
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.
>>
>
>
> OK. You do that and show how it depends on the future polarizer settings 
> in a way that gives comprehensible dynamics.
>
> Bruce
>

I did for The EPR experiment

https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/37137a04-4002-4759-afe7-fff2cd4bccd4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 16:19, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:07 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
> >> Instead of yet another long winded vague metaphysical definition give me 
> >> some examples of mechanism so I know what the hell you're talking about. 
> >> Start by answering my simple clear yes or no questions.
> 
> > I use “mechanism” as a short cut for “YD + CT” (yes doctor and the 
> > Church-Turing hypothesis).
> I use “digital machine” or “program” or “number” or “word” for what you might 
> mean by Mechanism.
> 
> That's nice I'm happy for you; but how about answering my original questions 
> with simple yes or no answers?
> 
> Is a cuckoo clock a mechanism?

In (serious) metaphysics, a word like “cuckoo clock” is not well defined. You 
don’t answer my question.

If by cuckoo clock you mean the physical object, then my answer is NO. The 
cuckoo clock is not “a mechanism” (by which I mean anything emulbale by a 
Turing machine.

If you define a cuckoo clock by its function (measuring time), then we can 
argue that it is Turing emulable, and in that case we can call it a mechanism.




> Is a roulette wheel a mechanism? 
> Is a Tritium atom with a half life of 12.32 years a mechanism? 

Same answer as above, except that it is more obvious that you mean the physical 
object.


> Is the multiplication table a mechanism?

No. That is not a mechanism. It might be part of a mechanism, but a 
multiplication table is not a digital machine per se.



> 
> And if you're going to dodge the questions again at least have the common 
> curtesy to think of a better excuse than "I din't know what a cuckoo clock 
> is”.

The physical object “cuckoo clock” is not a being, with Digital Mechanism. It 
is a map on the infinitely many accessible computational histories, which are 
realised in arithmetic. It is not an object at all, but a locally sharable 
first person plural experience.

This can be said to be confirmed by physics. If we look at the physical object 
close enough, we detect the electronically orbital which map the histories 
where we can detect where the electron are present, and some physicists already 
talk about measure on possible findings. The mathematics of accessible 
computational histories (the logics S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*) is coherent with the 
findings of the natural scientists.



> 
> > A physical cuckoo clock is an informal poorly defined notion.
> 
> Oh for christ sake, then EVERYTHING is a informal poorly defined notion. And 
> actually that would be OK because fundamentally definitions are not important 
> in language, examples are.

For practical application you are right. But when we assume mechanism and sinus 
metaphysics, the “obvious” is no more obvious.



>  
> > Or do you define a cuckoo clock by [,,,]
> 
> That is the problem right there! You are always and forever talking about 
> definitions as if they are somehow fundamental but they NEVER are. In any 
> language including mathematics the parent of definition is ALWAYS example. 
> Where do you think Euclid got the knowledge to white his definitions?  Where 
> do you think lexicographers got the knowledge to white their dictionaries?

Exemples are good, but when we do metaphysics, the metaphysical or ontological 
nature behind the examples should not be taken for granted.




> 
> If you can't answer specific clear questions about what is and what is not a 
> mechanism with either a yes or a no answer then you lack the tools to 
> communicate deep philosophical ideas to your fellow human beings, you can't 
> even tell them how to tie their shoes.
>  
> > You will not find the expression “a mechanism” in any of my post.
> 
> I know and that is exactly precisely the problem. You talk about mechanism 
> constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY,

But I made clear that “Mechanism” is the act of faith of saying yes to a doctor 
who propose a digital physical body/brain.

Then I use the term machine for your substantive “mechanism”, especially to 
avoid any confusion here. 
And by digital machine, I mean any number/program i in the enumeration phi_i of 
the partial computable function. I define “emulable” in this way: a number x 
emulate a number y if phi_x(y, z) = phi_y(z). A universal digital-machine or 
number is a number u which emulates all numbers: i.e. for all x phi_u(x,y) = 
phi_x(y).

I can explain more on this, or you can search for my posts where I have 
explained this already, perhaps before you were participating on this list. 




> and yet you are unable to provide a single specific example of something that 
> has that quality or single specific example of something that does not. And 
> that means you literally don't know what you're talking about.


Avoid those ad hominem comment. Ask specific question. 



> 
> > A perfect definition of digital machine is [...]
> 
> God damn it! I don't want yet another definition, perfect or otherwise, I 
> want an EXAMPLE!

But I have given an exa

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:03 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the
>> singlet state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM 
>> is
>> inconsistent with retrocausality.
>>
>
>
>>  Bruce
>>
>
>
> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote
> into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The one
> and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>
> I don't see this in:
>

 It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to
 the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly rules
 out retrocausality.

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;
>>>
>>
>> No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical
>> situation, so it can't be consistent.
>>
>>
>>> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not ruled
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>> It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism. So
>> in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a
>> different theory.
>>
>> Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet
>> state made up of two spin half particles?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
> You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.
>


OK. You do that and show how it depends on the future polarizer settings in
a way that gives comprehensible dynamics.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTWRnQRkvavtY-jfDDj4wRpgJDezjpcmHz_vp%3DCK282gQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:53:59 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the singlet 
> state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM is 
> inconsistent with retrocausality. 
>
  

>  Bruce
>


 There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote 
 into Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The one 
 and only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?

 I don't see this in:

>>>
>>> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to 
>>> the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly rules 
>>> out retrocausality.
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>>
>> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;
>>
>
> No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical 
> situation, so it can't be consistent.
>  
>
>> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not ruled 
>> out.
>>
>
> It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism. So 
> in so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a 
> different theory.
>
> Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet state 
> made up of two spin half particles?
>
> Bruce 
>



You just write down a pair: a state and its CPT-mirror state.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b5bcadd7-0691-4ba8-9c98-118e9931a146%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:36 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:


 As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the singlet
 state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM is
 inconsistent with retrocausality.

>>>
>>>
  Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote into
>>> Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The one and
>>> only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>>>
>>> I don't see this in:
>>>
>>
>> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to
>> the future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly rules
>> out retrocausality.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral;
>

No it is not. It it gives a different answer for the same physical
situation, so it can't be consistent.


> there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not ruled
> out.
>

It is inconsistent with standard quantum mechanics, in any formalism. So in
so far as QM is correct, retrocausality is ruled out -- it is a different
theory.

Incidentally, how would you write down the amplitude for the singlet state
made up of two spin half particles?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTQv4qsrWfBHL3k_2%2Bu2GW%3DPjcCO_gT0W0kqOrL%3DdvAAA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:00:01 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the singlet 
>>> state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM is 
>>> inconsistent with retrocausality. 
>>>
>>  
>>
>>>  Bruce
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote into 
>> Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The one and 
>> only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>>
>> I don't see this in:
>>
>
> It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to the 
> future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly rules out 
> retrocausality.
>
> Bruce 
>


But the reflective path integral is consistent with the path integral; 
there are both futures and histories. So it's consistent with, not ruled 
out.

@philipthrift

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a00bb2d-ef13-4926-833c-336c79e4a3f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:20:27 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> As it currently stands, the formalism of QM does not allow the singlet
>> state to depend on the final polariser settings, so standard QM is
>> inconsistent with retrocausality.
>>
>
>
>>  Bruce
>>
>
>
> There is a "the" formalism of QM? It's "the" one the LORD God wrote into
> Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai I suppose you are referring to. The one and
> only. Why are so many physicists strict religious fundamentalists?
>
> I don't see this in:
>

It's in there if you know how to look! Histories lead from the past to the
future -- that is how amplitudes are calculated. This explicitly rules out
retrocausality.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSsnSwrFOin%2BnuoNje_cnH-MgB-TpyxWj97a91E23DP3Q%40mail.gmail.com.