Re: STEP 3

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 8:25:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:39AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch  > wrote: 
> > 
> > On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch  > 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  
> In 
> > other words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into 
> an 
> > external environment necessary for the mind to be conscious? 
> > 
> > 
> > Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since the brain is a 
> classical 
> > object (not in a state of quantum coherence). So decoherence, 
> and the 
> > emergence of the classical from the quantum, is essential for 
> > consciousness. Just as to be conscious is to be conscious of 
> something, 
> > such as the external world. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You appear to be extrapolating a causation from the appearance of a 
> > correlation: 
> > "The brain is classical, and the brain is conscious, therefore all 
> > consciousness must be classical." 
> > 
> > The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. 
> > 
> > 
> > Show me consciousness that does not involve decohered classical matter, 
> such as 
> > in a brain. 
> >
> > 
> > Also, is a brain really conscious of the external world, or is it 
> conscious 
> > of it's internal states?  The redness of a red apple does not exist 
> > physically. Redness is an invention of the brain, which cannot be 
> found in 
> > the external world of colorless particles. 
> > 
> > 
> > But the physical world does contain photons of various wavelengths -- 
> which 
> > correspond to different  colours. Correlation does not necessarily 
> indicate 
> > causation, but scientific study does reveal the underlying relations 
> between 
> > things. 
> > 
> > Bruce  
> > 
>
> Riffing further on this theme, conscious must be intimately tied up 
> with a process for deriving meaning from data. Given a continuous 
> ontology (eg ontic-ψ), this must involve a discretisation process - 
> decoherence pretty much fits the bill here, and so Brent's often 
> posed-insight that consciousness must involve an interaction between 
> an observer system, and an environment that is traced over makes a lot 
> of sense. 
>
> Going the other way, computationalism entails via the UDA that the 
> physical world has this continuous character. So computationalism must 
> ultimately address Brent's insigh...





That the *physical *nature of matter is discrete but the *psychical* nature 
(of brain matter) is continuous is an interesting idea.

There is also the question of time, of which this is relevant:

"The Dynamic Theory of Time [says] time is strikingly different from the 
dimensions of space. ... The dynamic aspect of music is essential to its 
aesthetic value, and is directly tied to the dynamic aspect of time." ref: 
“Sideways Music", in (link: https://markosian.net/online-papers/) 
markosian.net/online-papers/ 


@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/a66a92ae-db14-477b-b066-ad2499e271d5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:39AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  In
> other words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an
> external environment necessary for the mind to be conscious?
> 
> 
> Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since the brain is a classical
> object (not in a state of quantum coherence). So decoherence, and the
> emergence of the classical from the quantum, is essential for
> consciousness. Just as to be conscious is to be conscious of 
> something,
> such as the external world.
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be extrapolating a causation from the appearance of a
> correlation:
> "The brain is classical, and the brain is conscious, therefore all
> consciousness must be classical."
> 
> The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
> 
> 
> Show me consciousness that does not involve decohered classical matter, such 
> as
> in a brain.
>   
> 
> Also, is a brain really conscious of the external world, or is it 
> conscious
> of it's internal states?  The redness of a red apple does not exist
> physically. Redness is an invention of the brain, which cannot be found in
> the external world of colorless particles.
> 
> 
> But the physical world does contain photons of various wavelengths -- which
> correspond to different  colours. Correlation does not necessarily indicate
> causation, but scientific study does reveal the underlying relations between
> things.
> 
> Bruce 
> 

Riffing further on this theme, conscious must be intimately tied up
with a process for deriving meaning from data. Given a continuous
ontology (eg ontic-ψ), this must involve a discretisation process -
decoherence pretty much fits the bill here, and so Brent's often
posed-insight that consciousness must involve an interaction between
an observer system, and an environment that is traced over makes a lot
of sense.

Going the other way, computationalism entails via the UDA that the
physical world has this continuous character. So computationalism must
ultimately address Brent's insight. This comes to the fore with the
MGA - the argument breaks down when an environment is included that
adds essential stocasticity to subsequent runs of the machine (ie only
the original run of Klara is conscious, the recording reruns of
Olympia are not, nor might any accidental recordings either).

-- 


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190810012533.GB2223%40zen.

Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?

[J O]

So, in other words, we can only know the fragment of reality as transmitted
through our senses into our perceived memories - which may explain why
everyone has a different perspective about reality - they only know their
piece of the mosaic - the whole picture of reality only becomes clearer as
we begin to share and piece together our fragments

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:21 PM J O  wrote:

> perhaps 1980 still exists - but only as a fragmented ‘state’ - where all
> the fragmented perspectives of everyone who lived then reside in a
> separated state of reality in each persons memory.  A mosaic of time
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/8/2019 10:33 PM, smitra wrote:
>> > I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain
>> > processes that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present
>> > moment, there is no way to prove that 1980 physically exists or
>> > existed (whatever the past tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980
>> > exists (existed) it must be considered to be a parallel world where
>> > the people in our memory of that time really exist (existed). The time
>> > evolution operator from that time to the present can be expanded in a
>> > basis where complete sets of commuting local observables are diagonal.
>> > One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the present world we find
>> > ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed real and the
>> > present world which is one particular component of that same 1980
>> > state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the
>> > other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real.
>>
>> Or to recap.  There's a world which we believe is real because we
>> remember it  and find consistent evidence of it today.  Therefore we
>> should believe in the existence of worlds for which we have no evidence
>> or memories.
>>
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e40cede-c108-402c-7d3f-cd25c8f8a29d%40verizon.net
>> .
>>
> --
> Jennifer O'Bryon
> 70 North Main Street
> Bryant Pond, Maine  04219
> 207-418-2496
>
> --
Jennifer O'Bryon
70 North Main Street
Bryant Pond, Maine  04219
207-418-2496

-- 
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/CAAgt4%2BE1qryFf%3DOWoVGaQ8XvsJW9muKEPtnuj_Lk5ACMST4i5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?

[J O]

perhaps 1980 still exists - but only as a fragmented ‘state’ - where all
the fragmented perspectives of everyone who lived then reside in a
separated state of reality in each persons memory.  A mosaic of time

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 8/8/2019 10:33 PM, smitra wrote:
> > I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain
> > processes that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present
> > moment, there is no way to prove that 1980 physically exists or
> > existed (whatever the past tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980
> > exists (existed) it must be considered to be a parallel world where
> > the people in our memory of that time really exist (existed). The time
> > evolution operator from that time to the present can be expanded in a
> > basis where complete sets of commuting local observables are diagonal.
> > One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the present world we find
> > ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed real and the
> > present world which is one particular component of that same 1980
> > state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the
> > other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real.
>
> Or to recap.  There's a world which we believe is real because we
> remember it  and find consistent evidence of it today.  Therefore we
> should believe in the existence of worlds for which we have no evidence
> or memories.
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e40cede-c108-402c-7d3f-cd25c8f8a29d%40verizon.net
> .
>
-- 
Jennifer O'Bryon
70 North Main Street
Bryant Pond, Maine  04219
207-418-2496

-- 
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/CAAgt4%2BGrW-v%3DkXB-4Y8s-w4z-55WqJZEhyGxcrROn1w%2BKWJnLg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  In other
>>> words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external
>>> environment necessary for the mind to be conscious?
>>>
>>
>> Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since the brain is a classical
>> object (not in a state of quantum coherence). So decoherence, and the
>> emergence of the classical from the quantum, is essential for
>> consciousness. Just as to be conscious is to be conscious of something,
>> such as the external world.
>>
>>
> You appear to be extrapolating a causation from the appearance of a
> correlation:
> "The brain is classical, and the brain is conscious, therefore all
> consciousness must be classical."
>
> The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
>

Show me consciousness that does not involve decohered classical matter,
such as in a brain.


> Also, is a brain really conscious of the external world, or is it
> conscious of it's internal states?  The redness of a red apple does not
> exist physically. Redness is an invention of the brain, which cannot be
> found in the external world of colorless particles.
>

But the physical world does contain photons of various wavelengths -- which
correspond to different  colours. Correlation does not necessarily indicate
causation, but scientific study does reveal the underlying relations
between things.

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/CAFxXSLQWMX%3D5YLZyifHO75YqbTSnWY20ZXXQnX1ZF_5qvbryvg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:54 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Without the notion of multiplication and division "a prime number" would
> have no meaning, and multiplication and division is something ONLY physics
> can do.
>
> *> First that is false. Any universal digital machine can add and
> multiply,*
>

Yes  a universal digital machine can add and multiply, and a universal
digital machine just like any machine is made of matter that obeys the laws
of physics.


> > *Second, the expression “physics can do” is so terribly vague that I
> can interpret it it many different ways,*
>

The statement "physics can do X" may be vague in the Brunospeak language
but it isn't in the English language .

> *But I explicitly do not postulate physics*.
>

I know for a fact that is untrue. You postulate physics every time you wish
to get to the outer side but refuse to step off the curb into the street if
you judge that a physical car moving at its current physical speed will
intersect with your physical body before you have time to get to the other
side. And you are not the only one, for the last 500 million years without
exception every single one of your ancestors has postulated physics or you
wouldn't be here today; I'm sure some animals ignored physics but they left
no descendants.


> > Without physics no statement in arithmetic would be true and none would
> be false either, they would just be meaningless squiqles.
>
> *> If that is true, 2+2=4 would be a theorem in some physical theory *
>

No theory was involved. People observed that whenever they added two
physical things to two more physical things they always got a invariant
quantity, four physical things. People then used inductive reasoning to
conclude this would always be true even when they are not observed, and at
least until the discovery of quantum mechanics this has all worked out
fine. But if you wait long enough induction will always let you down.


> > *you need to explain how an arithmetical John Clark is not conscious,*
>

I was talking about intelligence, I have not proposed any consciousness
theory not because it is hard but because it is easy. A theory must fit the
facts and it's easy to do that with consciousness because there are no
facts about it to fit except that I John Clark am conscious.

*> How does you God,* [...]
>

And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because I believe in the
value of induction and you've never said anything intelagent after that.

>>  I don't know how to be clearer or more unambiguous. As I've said more
> than once, a real calculation can be used to buy a Bitcoin but your pretend
> phantom calculations lack that property.
>
> *> How can the arithmetical John Clark distinguish between an arithmetical
> bitcoin and a physical bitcoin?*
>

 Distinguish? The arithmetical John Clark can't *do* any distinguishing,
arithmetical John Clark can't *do* anything at all because doing involves
change and arithmetic never changes, but matter that obeys the laws of
physics does.

*> You just repeat your credo, without providing explanations or
> justifications. You seem to imbue a lot of magic in your notion of matter.*
>

If the ability to change by interacting with time and space is magic then
yes, matter has a certain magic that numbers lack.

>>  Speak for yourself. Maybe you lack the ability to deduce the fact that
> a non physical thing can't emulate a computer or emulate anything else but
> I'm smart enough to have figured it out; and I'm not bragging because it
> takes very little brain power to figure it out.
>
> *> A point which is simply contradict by the facts. The only problem is
> that you don’t open the textbook.*
>

I don't have to open my computer for it to make a calculation, why do I
have to open a textbook for it to make a calculation?

> > *Arithmetic implement also the computation with oracle.*
>

It the computations performed by a mathematical oracle are real then so is
the magic performed by Harry potter.


> >> It has been proven that the truth or falsehood of the Continuum
> hypothesis makes no difference to our current set theory; and in a
> similar way if the entire multiverse lacks the resources to calculate a
> prime number bigger than *10^(10^1000)*, and it probably does, then the
> existence or nonexistence of that enormous number has nothing to do with
> reality.
>
> *> With your conception of reality, which is inconsistent with mechanism*.
>

Maybe so but I'm not sure because I don't know what the definition of
"mechanism"
is in Brunospeak, although I have a feeling it would contain words like
"primitive" and "fundamental" which seem pretty irrelevant on a discussion
about mind.

>> . I and my entire world might be a simulation, but if so I am NOT the product
> of a computation in arithmetic,
>
> *> How do you know?*
>

I explained how I know that immediately after the comma:

"I am the product of a computation made in a Physical Turing Machine
because matter that obeys the laws of 

Stuff it

[Philip Thrift]

*The Right Stuff*
Ned Markosian
https://markosiandotnet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/right-stuff.pdf
from https://markosian.net/online-papers/

*Things are also known as “objects” and “entities,” and stuff is also known 
as*
*“matter” and “material.”*

*This paper argues for including stuff in one’s ontology. The distinction*
*between things and stuff is first clarified, and then three different 
ontologies*
*of the physical universe are spelled out: a pure thing ontology, a pure 
stuff*
*ontology, and a mixed ontology of both things and stuff. (The paper 
defends*
*the latter.) Eleven different reasons for including stuff (in addition to 
things)*
*in one’s ontology are given (seven of which the author endorses and four 
of*
*which would be sensible reasons for philosophers with certain metaphysical*
*positions that the author does not happen to hold). Then five objections 
to*
*positing stuff are considered and rejected.*

@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/2fb34a28-8312-4d8f-920c-67afedeb9929%40googlegroups.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Jason Resch]

On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  In other
>> words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external
>> environment necessary for the mind to be conscious?
>>
>
> Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since the brain is a classical
> object (not in a state of quantum coherence). So decoherence, and the
> emergence of the classical from the quantum, is essential for
> consciousness. Just as to be conscious is to be conscious of something,
> such as the external world.
>
>
You appear to be extrapolating a causation from the appearance of a
correlation:
"The brain is classical, and the brain is conscious, therefore all
consciousness must be classical."

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Also, is a brain really conscious of the external world, or is it conscious
of it's internal states?  The redness of a red apple does not exist
physically. Redness is an invention of the brain, which cannot be found in
the external world of colorless particles.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjgSDZqezp35FNi7tM1u3p%2B34PFK1ANq7q3a77gSVt%3DFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/8/2019 10:33 PM, smitra wrote:
I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain 
processes that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present 
moment, there is no way to prove that 1980 physically exists or 
existed (whatever the past tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980 
exists (existed) it must be considered to be a parallel world where 
the people in our memory of that time really exist (existed). The time 
evolution operator from that time to the present can be expanded in a 
basis where complete sets of commuting local observables are diagonal. 
One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the present world we find 
ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed real and the 
present world which is one particular component of that same 1980 
state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the 
other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real.


Or to recap.  There's a world which we believe is real because we 
remember it  and find consistent evidence of it today.  Therefore we 
should believe in the existence of worlds for which we have no evidence 
or memories.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e40cede-c108-402c-7d3f-cd25c8f8a29d%40verizon.net.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:19 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> Contra-lucid dreams are impossible. Bruce could still claim that all dreams 
> are lucid, (like day-dreams)  and this corroborates his statement that he 
> knows when he is awake, which indeed presupposes a non digital-mechanist 
> theory of mind.
> 
> Somehow, Bruce invoke a “mystical” relations between mind and matter. He is 
> coherent with his non mechanist presupposition and his believe in a primitive 
> irreducible physical reality,
> 
> I am glad that you understand that I am doing physics, and that I am 
> expounding it correctly.

Of course. If you say so.



> If this exposition disagrees with your "mechanism", then surely that shows 
> "mechanism" to be false. After all, you claim that you test your theory by 
> its agreement or not with standard physics.

Only the collapse of the we packet would be a problem for mechanism.




> 
> obeying some wave packet reduction. He is close to Stapp and Wigner where 
> eventually consciousness is responsible for the wave packet reduction.
> 
> No, I don't believe that consciousness reduces the wave packet. Decoherence 
> does a perfectly good job of that.


Once there is no collapse, decoherence is just self-entanglement. We can forget 
the other “world” because we cannot access them, FAPP, but not FMP (For 
Metaphysical Purpose).

Our problem is that you talk physics, but sometimes seem to infer metaphysical 
proposition, like the existence of a world, or the inexistence of some worlds. 
My point is that with mechanism, a large part of the metaphysics can be tested 
experimentally. We can do metaphysics/theology with the scientific attitude 
(modesty) and method.

Unlike Clark, your metaphysical position is coherent: you seem to believe in 
atome absolute external physical reality, and in the falsity of mechanism. That 
works very well together. But my working hypothesis is Descartes Mechanism 
(modernised through Turing & Co.) and the consequence is that Plato works in 
that setting, and Aristotle (materialism) does not. Then, for those willing to 
take QM at face value, without collapse, we do get a confirmation of the 
startling consequences of (digital) Mechanism.

Bruno




> 
> 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/CAFxXSLR7z30n8tJ4q%2BKACKjxvg2uq9GqyRqM2uY4Qxth6uEi%3DQ%40mail.gmail.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/A26D893C-0FE8-451E-8E7D-56E015048928%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:22 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 02:23, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:30 PM Bruno Marchal >>> > wrote:
 On 7 Aug 2019, at 14:41, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:
> 
> Superpositions are fine. It is just that they do not consist of "parallel 
> worlds”.
 
 But then by QM linearity, it is easy to prepare a superposition with 
 orthogonal histories, like me seing a cat dead and me seeing a cat alive, 
 when I look at the Schoredinger cat. Yes, decoherence makes hard for me to 
 detect the superposition I am in, but it does not make it going away 
 (unless you invoke some wave packet reduction of course)
>  
> “Parallel worlds/histories” are just a popular name to describe a 
> superposition.
> 
> In your dreams, maybe. There is a clear and precise definition of 
> separate worlds: they are orthogonal states that do not interact. The 
> absence of possible interaction means that they are not superpositions.
 
 That is weird.
 The branches of a superposition never interact. The point is that they can 
 interfere statistically, if not there is no superposition, nor 
 interference, only a mixture.
 
 There some to be some fluidity is the concepts of superposition and basis 
 vectors inherent in this discussion. Any vector space can be spanned by a 
 set of orthogonal basis vectors. There are an infinite number of such 
 bases, plus the possibility of non-orthogonal bases given by any set of 
 vectors that span the space. If the basis vectors are orthogonal, these 
 basis vectors do not interact. But any general vector can be expressed as 
 a superposition of these orthogonal basis vectors. (Orthonormal basis for 
 a normed Hilbert space.)
 
 So the question whether the branches of a superposition can interact 
 (interfere) or not is simply a matter of whether the branches are 
 orthogonal or not. If we have a superposition of orthogonal basis vectors, 
 then the branches do not interact. However, if we have a superposition of 
 non-orthogonal vector, then the branches can interact.
 
 For example, the wave packet for a free electron is a superposition of 
 momentum eigenstates (and position eigenstates). These momentum 
 eigenstates are orthogonal and do not interact. The overlap function 
  = 0 for all p not equal to p'. This is the definition of orthogonal 
 states. But this does not mean that the wave packet of the electron is a 
 mixture: It is a pure state since there is a basis of the corresponding 
 Hilbert space for which the actual state is one of the basis vectors. (We 
 can construct an orthonormal set of basis vectors around this vector.)  On 
 the other hand, the two paths that can be taken by a particle traversing a 
 two-slit interference experiment are not orthogonal, so these paths can 
 interact. So when the quantum state is written as a superposition of such 
 paths, there is interference.
 
 Orthogonality is the key difference between things that can interfere and 
 those that cannot. So if separate worlds are orthogonal, there can be no 
 interference between them, and the absence of such interaction defines the 
 worlds as separate.
>>> 
>>> What I use is the fact that when we have orthogonal states, like I0> and 
>>> I1>, I can prepare a state like (like I0> + I1>), and then I am myself in 
>>> the superposition state Ime>( I0> + I1>), Now, in that state, I have the 
>>> choice between measuring in the base {I0>, I1>} or in the base {I0> + I1>, 
>>> I0> - I1>). In the first case, the “parallel” history becomes indetectoble, 
>>> but not in the second case, so we have to take the superposition into 
>>> account to get the prediction right in all situations.
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is actually correct. Take a concrete example that we all 
>>> understand. If we prepare a silver atom with spin 'up' in the x-direction, 
>>> then a measurement in the x direction does not produce a superposition -- 
>>> the answer is 'up' with 100% certainty. But is we measure this state in the 
>>> transverse, y-direction, the result is either 'up-y' or 'down-y' with equal 
>>> probabilities. This is because the initial state 'up-x' is already a 
>>> superposition of 'up-y' and 'down-y'. When we measure this 

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 12:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:02:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Nobody experience worlds. You only experience one consciousness, but that 
> does not mean that other people are conscious, even when you cannot interact 
> with them. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is at least a possibility, Suppose an individual consciousness goes 
> (proto-wise) down to the quantum level of histories.
> 
> cf. Quantum Measure Theory
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/everything-list/CKrX7N-DRUQ
> 
> Then there could be multiple histories of subconsciousness that integrate 
> into a single consciousness.
> 
> Nothing to do with other people, though.

No problem with this. Consciousness is absolutely real, but personal identity 
is only relatively real. Eventually, it is simple to assume only one person, 
playing a trick to itself. But that is on the fringe of being not communicable 
(in G* \ G).

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/9e99b487-d336-457b-8501-f19c3889bcd4%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/90C729B1-AE1D-4142-839F-0D7805198E09%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:19 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Contra-lucid dreams are impossible. Bruce could still claim that all
> dreams are lucid, (like day-dreams)  and this corroborates his statement
> that he knows when he is awake, which indeed presupposes a non
> digital-mechanist theory of mind.
>
> Somehow, Bruce invoke a “mystical” relations between mind and matter. He
> is coherent with his non mechanist presupposition and his believe in a
> primitive irreducible physical reality,
>

I am glad that you understand that I am doing physics, and that I am
expounding it correctly. If this exposition disagrees with your
"mechanism", then surely that shows "mechanism" to be false. After all, you
claim that you test your theory by its agreement or not with standard
physics.

obeying some wave packet reduction. He is close to Stapp and Wigner where
> eventually consciousness is responsible for the wave packet reduction.
>

No, I don't believe that consciousness reduces the wave packet. Decoherence
does a perfectly good job of that.

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/CAFxXSLR7z30n8tJ4q%2BKACKjxvg2uq9GqyRqM2uY4Qxth6uEi%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 15:55, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:19 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Yes, everybody can find prime numbers because everyBODY has a body made if 
> > matter that obeys the laws of physics. 
> 
> > That makes a human body able to find some prime number, but the prime 
> > number notion is not transformed into a physical notion through this. 
> 
> Without the notion of multiplication and division "a prime number" would have 
> no meaning, and multiplication and division is something ONLY physics can do. 

First that is false. Any universal digital machine can add and multiply, and 
they do that in the (sigma_1) arithmetical reality.

Second, the expression “physics can do” is so terribly vague that I can 
interpret it it many different ways, some true, some false. What is plausible 
is that some subset of the physical laws can implement some digital machine 
(including the universal one).

But I explicitly do not postulate physics. Only x + 0 = x, etc. Th reason is 
that I search of an explanation of where physics come from, and I avoid to 
postulate anything physical to avoid circularity and infinite regression.





>  
> > Same with computation.
> 
> Yep.
>  
> > All the proposition making some computation into arithmetical existence are 
> > true, independently of the laws of physics,
> 
> Without physics no statement in arithmetic would be true


Hmm mathematician disagree with this. It is only a statement in your particular 
materialist philosophy, and the point is that this cannot be true when we 
assume the digital mechanist hypothesis.





> and none would be false either, they would just be meaningless squiqles.


If that is true, 2+2=4 would be a theorem in some physical theory which would 
not assume arithmetic. 

Show it.





>  
> > like the arithmetical proposition making 17 into a prime number, do not 
> > depends on human existence.
> 
> It doesn't depend on humans but it does depend on matter and the laws of 
> physics as that is the only thing that can perform a calculation,

Relatively to you, but that happens in arithmetic. Or, as I have said already 
many times, you need to explain how an arithmetical John Clark is not 
conscious, despite telling me exactly what you tell me now.

How does you God, or Ontological Commitment, distinguish between the same 
computation, when processed on different Turing universal system. 

Bruce can do that, by invoking a non mechanist theory of mind. 

You can’t, because you assume Mechanism, and I have shown that to be impossible 
(or meaningless).



> and without computation nothing could be said about 17 being prime, in fact 
> nothing could be said about the number 17 at all because it would be 
> meaningless gibberish. 
>   
> > Insects have used the primality of 13 and 17 well before human did 
> > mathematics, for example.
> 
> Insects are made of matter and they obey the laws of physics.
>  
> >>> A computation can be realised physically, but also arithmetically, as 
> >>> shown in all elementary textbook.
> 
> >> Oh god here we go again!! Here we go with elementary textbooks making 
> >> physically realizable calculations


Not making. Just explaining.



> 
> > Not at all. The elementary textbook just explain in detail that the notion 
> > of computation is available in arithmetic,
> 
> Explanations are a human invention that benefit only them, explanations can 
> not compute.


Yes, so look at the explanation. Here you just change the level of discussion 
by straw man remarks.



>  
>  > You will need physical laws only to implement some computation physically;
> 
> Translation from the original bafflegab: You only need physical laws if you 
> want something more than a pretend toy calculation.  
> 
> >>  When it comes to discerning the difference between a real calculation and 
> >> ridiculous phantom calculations your confusion is epic.  
> 
> > Use of “real” is invalid here.
> 
> I don't know how to be clearer or more unambiguous. As I've said more than 
> once, a real calculation can be used to buy a Bitcoin but your pretend 
> phantom calculations lack that property. 


How can the arithmetical John Clark distinguish between an arithmetical bitcoin 
and a physical bitcoin?

You just repeat your credo, without providing explanations or justifications. 
You seem to imbue a lot of magic in your notion of matter.





> >>>a computation is not the same as a description of computation,
> 
> >>  I know, that was my point. The Mathematical  language can describe a 
> >> calculation but it can not make a calculation anymore than the English 
> >> language can produce a flesh and blood cat from the letters C, A and T.
> 
> > Yes, but you cannot deduce from this that a mathematical structure cannot 
> > emulate a computation. 
> 
> Speak for yourself. Maybe you lack the ability to deduce the fact that a non 
> physical thing can't emulate a computer or emulate anything 

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>

On 09-08-2019 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:16 PM smitra > wrote:

>
>> On 09-08-2019 05:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> It is really quite simple. If a state is a sum of two components,
>>> |psi> = (|A> + |B>), then we measure  = (
>> +
>>> |B>) =  +  + 2. If  does not vanish (the
>>> components are not orthogonal), then there is interference. For
>>> orthogonal components  = 0, and there is no interference.
>>> Introducing separate states for the two slits does not aid
>>> comprehension here.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> What is nonsense? The fact that separate states for the two slits does
> not aid comprehension? Or the fact that orthogonal states do not
> interfere?
>

Your statement that orthogonal states don't interfere is plain nonsense.

Huh?? Did you not understand my example above of the state (|A> + |B>)? 
There is interference in the norm only if |A> and |B> are not 
orthogonal. This is elementary text book stuff.




>> What we observe at a point x on the screen is the expectation
>> value of the projection operator |x>
> No, we don't observe an expectation value, which is a weighted average
> over possible outcomes. We measure a particular outcome at each point
> on the screen.
>

And that's precisely given by the expectation value of the projection
operator |x> = psi*(x) psi(x) = |psi(x)|^2



That is the expectation value over all possible results. We only observe 
one spot on the screen for each photon through the slits -- we do not 
directly observe expectation values. The states  and  are not 
orthogonal.


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/12c83d4b-51cc-1965-46df-1b417ba22416%40optusnet.com.au.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What I use is the fact that when we have orthogonal states, like I0> and
>>> I1>, I can prepare a state like (like I0> + I1>), and then I am myself in
>>> the superposition state Ime>( I0> + I1>), Now, in that state, I have the
>>> choice between measuring in the base {I0>, I1>} or in the base {I0> + I1>,
>>> I0> - I1>). In the first case, the “parallel” history becomes indetectoble,
>>> but not in the second case, so we have to take the superposition into
>>> account to get the prediction right in all situations.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think this is actually correct. Take a concrete example that we
>> all understand. If we prepare a silver atom with spin 'up' in the
>> x-direction, then a measurement in the x direction does not produce a
>> superposition -- the answer is 'up' with 100% certainty. But is we measure
>> this state in the transverse, y-direction, the result is either 'up-y' or
>> 'down-y' with equal probabilities. This is because the initial state 'up-x'
>> is already a superposition of 'up-y' and 'down-y'. When we measure this in
>> the x-direction, there is no parallel history. When we measure in the
>> y-direction, we get either 'up-y' or 'down-y'. MWI says that for either
>> result, the alternative occurs in some other world. And that alternative
>> result is just as undetectable as the 'down-x' result for the x-measurement.
>>
>>
>>
>> The pure state up-x is the same state as the superposition of up-y and
>> down-y.
>> Me in front of up-x and Me in front of up-y + down-y are only different
>> description of the same state. When measuring that state in the
>> x-direction, I don’t made that y-superposition disappears.
>>
>
> All you are saying here is that if you measure the up-x state in the x
> direction, the state does not change -- it is still a superposition of up-y
> and down-y. Of course, if the state is not changed it does not change.
> Tautologies are not very useful.
>
>
> OK, but you are saying that “ When we measure this in the x-direction,
> there is no parallel history”, like if the superposition did disappear,
> that is why I remind the tautology. They did not.
>
> The state can still be represented as a superposition in some other basis,
> true. But this fact is of no practical significance for the operation in
> question -- measurement of the x-polarization.
>
> I think there is a basic confusion in your thinking between basis states
> and "other worlds". You want to maintain the fiction that descriptions in
> terms of alternative basis states are somehow "real". But descriptions are
> not physical states, relative or otherwise.
>
>
> But they participate in the personal histories of the superposed state of
> the observers. And they do provide many relative states.
>

There are no superposed states of the observer to which we have access. All
other relative states are orthogonal and inaccessible.


Let us use “superposition of state” instead. The word “world” has too much
> metaphysical implicit connotations.
>
> You object to the use of the word "world" in order to cover this confusion
> between basis states and worlds. A parallel world is a well-defined
> concept.
>
> We can make attempt to make it precise, like the transitive closure of
> interaction. In that case, if I look at the Schroedinger cat, I just
> entangle myself with it, and I end up in the superposition state “seeing
> the cat dead + seeing the cat alive”. Then if I interact with you, you end
> up in the superposition state “listening to me saying that the cat is
> alive” + "listening to me saying that the cat is dead”, and the entire
> universe, splits or differentiate locally through those (stepped light
> limited) interaction.
>

But, as I have just said, those other states of the superposition are
orthogonal and not accessible. They are, in terms of the definition, other
worlds.

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/CAFxXSLTU-C%2BKGVYXQt0L4TXWpTHK%2Bh-JsrGRnxV5Q0ge-ry5Og%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:04 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:49 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:59 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>

 You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and
 implying what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this
 line of reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors
 the 1000 bit semi-prime.

>>>
>>> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime:
>>> by rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>>>
>>
>> I could, perhaps, expand a bit here. You are the ones who swallow Bruno's
>> idea that the whole of physics is supported by the computations of the
>> universal dovetailer in arithmetic (platonia). Why do you then find it so
>> hard to believe that the computations to factorize large semi-prime numbers
>> cannot all be maintained in a high-dimensional abstract Hilbert space? The
>> computations there are not all that complicated -- just simple rotations of
>> a vector in  a 2^n dimensional space.
>>
>>
> I don't find it hard to believe that the computations can be maintained in
> a high-dimensional Hilbert space.  But I find it hard to believe that this
> high-dimensional Hilbert space can maintain the many components of the
> qubits but not also the many components of all the particles in the world
> and wider environment after other particles interact with those qubits.
> Nothing in the theory says the may components are eliminated, so why should
> I believe that they are?  Why do you?
>

Coherence is lost when the system interacts with randomised degrees of
freedom. It can be regarded as a thermodynamic effect -- classical
statistical mechanics.

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%3DN-LXLmTmZP2v%3DtvFTMEb52P-Ym05sNvetWkMSbcUTw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>
> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  In other
> words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external
> environment necessary for the mind to be conscious?
>

Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since the brain is a classical
object (not in a state of quantum coherence). So decoherence, and the
emergence of the classical from the quantum, is essential for
consciousness. Just as to be conscious is to be conscious of something,
such as the external 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT5J8JUjVrcCoC%3DCwnw8_VnYxfqQJYt8xZnoSV2p8bCMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> If the superposition are not relevant, then I don’t have any minimal
> physical realist account of the two slit experience, or even the stability
> of the atoms.
>
> Don't be obtuse, Bruno. Of course there is a superposition of the paths in
> the two slit experiment. But these are not orthogonal basis vectors. That
> is why there is interference.
>
>
> But each path are orthogonal. See the video of Susskind, where he use 1
> and 0 to describe the boxes where we can find by which hole the particles
> has gone through. Then, without looking at which hole the particle has gone
> through, we can get the interference of the wave which is obliged to be
> taken as spread on both holes, and that represent the superposition of the
> two orthogonal state described here as 0 and 1.
>
> I seldom watch long videos of lectures. But if Susskind is saying that the
> paths taken by the particle through the two slits are orthogonal then he is
> flatly wrong. Writing the paths as 1 and 0 does not make them orthogonal.
> And if they were orthogonal they could not interact, and you would not get
> interference. Two states |0> and |1> are orthogonal if their overlap
> vanishes: <0|1> = 0. Interference comes from the overlap, so if this
> vanishes, there is no interference.
>
> Either Susskind is terminally confused, or you have misrepresented him.
>
> Or maybe you are wrong. Slit one is orthogonal to slit two, as much as
> spin in different direction.
>

When you observe which slit the particle went through, then yes -- the
slits are then orthogonal eigenstates of the position operator.

The interference comes from the fact that we get a superposition of going
> through slit one + going through slit two when we send a planar
> monochromatic wave on the wall with the two slits, and don’t measure which
> slit the particle go through.
>

Yes, then the states that we are measuring are not orthogonal. You do not
get interference between orthogonal states.


> That is how Susskind explains the two slit experiment in term of
> entanglement. You don’t need to look at the whole video, I gave the
> position of this sub-talk in the video.
>
> Any crisp measurement, like “which slit” gives rise to orthogonal state,
> which can interfere when superposed.
>

Which is essentially what I said -- orthogonal states do not interfere.

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/CAFxXSLT-P23Vk522Y-H-TBdCGtjdyage%3D%3DZz1grQwAgudjqJkw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:22 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 02:23, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:30 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
 On 7 Aug 2019, at 14:41, Bruce Kellett  wrote:


 Superpositions are fine. It is just that they do not consist of
 "parallel worlds”.


 But then by QM linearity, it is easy to prepare a superposition with
 orthogonal histories, like me seing a cat dead and me seeing a cat alive,
 when I look at the Schoredinger cat. Yes, decoherence makes hard for me to
 detect the superposition I am in, but it does not make it going away
 (unless you invoke some wave packet reduction of course)



> “Parallel worlds/histories” are just a popular name to describe a
> superposition.
>

 In your dreams, maybe. There is a clear and precise definition of
 separate worlds: they are orthogonal states that do not interact. The
 absence of possible interaction means that they are not superpositions.


 That is weird.
 The branches of a superposition never interact. The point is that they
 can interfere statistically, if not there is no superposition, nor
 interference, only a mixture.

>>>
>>> There some to be some fluidity is the concepts of superposition and
>>> basis vectors inherent in this discussion. Any vector space can be spanned
>>> by a set of orthogonal basis vectors. There are an infinite number of such
>>> bases, plus the possibility of non-orthogonal bases given by any set of
>>> vectors that span the space. If the basis vectors are orthogonal, these
>>> basis vectors do not interact. But any general vector can be expressed as a
>>> superposition of these orthogonal basis vectors. (Orthonormal basis for a
>>> normed Hilbert space.)
>>>
>>> So the question whether the branches of a superposition can interact
>>> (interfere) or not is simply a matter of whether the branches are
>>> orthogonal or not. If we have a superposition of orthogonal basis vectors,
>>> then the branches do not interact. However, if we have a superposition of
>>> non-orthogonal vector, then the branches can interact.
>>>
>>> For example, the wave packet for a free electron is a superposition of
>>> momentum eigenstates (and position eigenstates). These momentum eigenstates
>>> are orthogonal and do not interact. The overlap function  = 0 for all
>>> p not equal to p'. This is the definition of orthogonal states. But this
>>> does not mean that the wave packet of the electron is a mixture: It is a
>>> pure state since there is a basis of the corresponding Hilbert space for
>>> which the actual state is one of the basis vectors. (We can construct an
>>> orthonormal set of basis vectors around this vector.)  On the other hand,
>>> the two paths that can be taken by a particle traversing a two-slit
>>> interference experiment are not orthogonal, so these paths can interact. So
>>> when the quantum state is written as a superposition of such paths, there
>>> is interference.
>>>
>>> Orthogonality is the key difference between things that can interfere
>>> and those that cannot. So if separate worlds are orthogonal, there can be
>>> no interference between them, and the absence of such interaction defines
>>> the worlds as separate.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I use is the fact that when we have orthogonal states, like I0> and
>>> I1>, I can prepare a state like (like I0> + I1>), and then I am myself in
>>> the superposition state Ime>( I0> + I1>), Now, in that state, I have the
>>> choice between measuring in the base {I0>, I1>} or in the base {I0> + I1>,
>>> I0> - I1>). In the first case, the “parallel” history becomes indetectoble,
>>> but not in the second case, so we have to take the superposition into
>>> account to get the prediction right in all situations.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think this is actually correct. Take a concrete example that we
>> all understand. If we prepare a silver atom with spin 'up' in the
>> x-direction, then a measurement in the x direction does not produce a
>> superposition -- the answer is 'up' with 100% certainty. But is we measure
>> this state in the transverse, y-direction, the result is either 'up-y' or
>> 'down-y' with equal probabilities. This is because the initial state 'up-x'
>> is already a superposition of 'up-y' and 'down-y'. When we measure this in
>> the x-direction, there is no parallel history. When we measure in the
>> y-direction, we get either 'up-y' or 'down-y'. MWI says that for either
>> result, the alternative occurs in some other world. And that alternative
>> result is just as undetectable as the 'down-x' result for the x-measurement.
>>
>>
>>
>> The pure state up-x is the same state as the superposition 

Re: STEP 3

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:49 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:59 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and
>>> implying what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this
>>> line of reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors
>>> the 1000 bit semi-prime.
>>>
>>
>> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime:
>> by rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>>
>
> I could, perhaps, expand a bit here. You are the ones who swallow Bruno's
> idea that the whole of physics is supported by the computations of the
> universal dovetailer in arithmetic (platonia). Why do you then find it so
> hard to believe that the computations to factorize large semi-prime numbers
> cannot all be maintained in a high-dimensional abstract Hilbert space? The
> computations there are not all that complicated -- just simple rotations of
> a vector in  a 2^n dimensional space.
>
>
I don't find it hard to believe that the computations can be maintained in
a high-dimensional Hilbert space.  But I find it hard to believe that this
high-dimensional Hilbert space can maintain the many components of the
qubits but not also the many components of all the particles in the world
and wider environment after other particles interact with those qubits.
Nothing in the theory says the may components are eliminated, so why should
I believe that they are?  Why do you?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgwsAMhLT_1G-4aJ1UMToi0KCh4UaqiMgOQHMCprAaZ7w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:15 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:52 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:19 PM Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 A multitude of classical computational traces can be found in a
 quantum computation.  You point out this multitude of computation 
 traces
 can be viewed as one state of a larger space.  Viewing it this way,
 however, doesn't eliminate the multitude of the classical computational
 traces.

>>>
>>> But viewing it in terms of "multiple classical computational traces"
>>> does not prove that there are multiple parallel worlds. You can change 
>>> the
>>> basis vectors, or the clustering properties of the components, to any
>>> extent that you like. That does not change the fact that there is only 
>>> one
>>> overall state, in one world, and no parallel worlds anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> Not immediately, the logic to get to many worlds is as follows:
>>
>>
>> 1. There are multiple classical computational traces in the quantum
>> computer.
>>
>
> The operation might be representable in this way. But that does not
> mean that this is what actually happens. Description in a different base
> leads to a different perspective.
>

 You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and
 implying what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this
 line of reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors
 the 1000 bit semi-prime.

>>>
>>> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime:
>>> by rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can we agree then that this 2^1000 dimensional Hilbert space is more than
>> just a matter of some perspective?
>>
>
> The Hilbert space is the quantum description of the 1000 qbits.
>
>
> 2. If the classical computational traces are computations of conscious
>> minds, there are multiple conscious minds and points of views.
>>
>
> Consciousness requires decoherent interaction with an environment, and
> there is no decoherence within the QC.
>

 Then you get either (a) violations of Church-Turing or (b)
 philosophical zombies. Which do you suppose it is?

>>>
>>> Philosophical zombies, assuming that these computations report "I am
>>> conscious". They are actually lying. I can write a program that prints out
>>> "I am conscious." That does not prove that it is conscious.
>>>
>>
>> Okay. That is at least consistent with your rejection of digital
>> mechanism. (The computational theory of mind).
>>
>> Do you believe that the same computation run on a classical computer
>> *would* be conscious?
>>
>
> What computation? A conscious computation on a QC will be conscious if it
> is performed on a classical computer. But for this computation to be
> conscious, the QC is no different from a CC.
>

What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness?  In other words,
could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external environment
necessary for the mind to be conscious?


>
>
> 3. The quantum computer maintains the superposition of the multiple
>> computational traces by virtue of being isolated from the environment.
>>
>
> So there cannot be conscious points of view within it.
>

 According to what theory of mind?

>>>
>>> The theory of mind that says that conscious minds interact with the
>>> physical environment.
>>>
>>
>> Dreams are impossible under such a theory.
>>
>
> Dreams are the product of unconscious interactions with the environment --
> of the brain if not of the external environment.
>
>
> 4. Our own minds are isolated from the rest of the environment for some
>> definition of the environment (e.g. a sphere with a 200 light year radius
>> centered on Earth).
>>
>
> The immediate environment even within our own skulls is sufficient to
> decohere anything quantum.
>

 Dechorence is relative.  Nothing in your brain is interacting with
 anything 200 light years away (at least not for 200 years).

>>>
>>> Nothing in my brain need to interact with anything 200 ly away-- it need
>>> only interact with my skull (or itself) to decohere.
>>>
>>
>> But coherence and decoherence are relative.  What is it about the qubits
>> that allows them to interact with other qubits and remain coherent?  Why
>> don't those other qubits count as part of their environment?
>>
>
> Coherence is the maintenance of 

Re: STEP 3

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:32:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/8/2019 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >>> Do you not see that there is only one intermediate state  and the 
> superposition is an artifact of expressing the state relative to a certain 
> basis? 
> >> 
> >> If it was an artfifact, one photon would not been able to interfere 
> with itself, and there would be no Bell’s violation. 
> > 
> > It's an artifact of expressing the photon as a superposition of two 
> bases |left slit> and |right slit> which are not orthogonal. There is still 
> only one state, one wave function. 
>
> One state? One wave function? OK. But that one state and its evolution 
> still describes many histories, and the expression of the photon as a 
> superposition is not an artfifact. The histories interfere. If the photons 
> are in the state 1/sqrt(2)( |left slit> -|right slit>  ) they behave 
> differently than the crisp photons going only through one slit. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
Exactly That's what I asked about many posts ago. :)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/XJJPuEd50EU/uXfvhY5UFQAJ

@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/af8d30c9-1cc2-473c-8a43-1e550a6066c1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/8/2019 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Do you not see that there is only one intermediate state  and the 
>>> superposition is an artifact of expressing the state relative to a certain 
>>> basis?
>> 
>> If it was an artfifact, one photon would not been able to interfere with 
>> itself, and there would be no Bell’s violation.
> 
> It's an artifact of expressing the photon as a superposition of two bases 
> |left slit> and |right slit> which are not orthogonal. There is still only 
> one state, one wave function.

One state? One wave function? OK. But that one state and its evolution still 
describes many histories, and the expression of the photon as a superposition 
is not an artfifact. The histories interfere. If the photons are in the state 
1/sqrt(2)( |left slit> -|right slit>  ) they behave differently than the crisp 
photons going only through one slit.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c25cb4c-af8c-c5a6-ed18-11197b5478bb%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/1CECA335-D572-4EFA-B150-794A43F3B939%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:02:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Nobody experience worlds. You only experience one consciousness, but that 
> does not mean that other people are conscious, even when you cannot 
> interact with them. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
This is at least a possibility, Suppose an individual consciousness goes 
(proto-wise) down to the quantum level of histories.

cf. Quantum Measure Theory
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/everything-list/CKrX7N-DRUQ

Then there could be *multiple histories of subconsciousness* that integrate 
into a single consciousness.

Nothing to do with other people, though.

@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/9e99b487-d336-457b-8501-f19c3889bcd4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 07:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:19 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> A multitude of classical computational traces can be found in a quantum 
> computation.  You point out this multitude of computation traces can be 
> viewed as one state of a larger space.  Viewing it this way, however, doesn't 
> eliminate the multitude of the classical computational traces.
> 
> But viewing it in terms of "multiple classical computational traces" does not 
> prove that there are multiple parallel worlds. You can change the basis 
> vectors, or the clustering properties of the components, to any extent that 
> you like. That does not change the fact that there is only one overall state, 
> in one world, and no parallel worlds anywhere.
> 
> Not immediately, the logic to get to many worlds is as follows: 
> 
> 
> 1. There are multiple classical computational traces in the quantum computer.
> 
> The operation might be representable in this way. But that does not mean that 
> this is what actually happens. Description in a different base leads to a 
> different perspective.
> 
> You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and implying 
> what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this line of 
> reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 
> bit semi-prime.
> 
> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime: by 
> rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>  
> 
> Can we agree then that this 2^1000 dimensional Hilbert space is more than 
> just a matter of some perspective?
> 
>  
> 
> 2. If the classical computational traces are computations of conscious minds, 
> there are multiple conscious minds and points of views.
> 
> Consciousness requires decoherent interaction with an environment, and there 
> is no decoherence within the QC.
> 
> Then you get either (a) violations of Church-Turing or (b) philosophical 
> zombies. Which do you suppose it is?
> 
> Philosophical zombies, assuming that these computations report "I am 
> conscious". They are actually lying. I can write a program that prints out "I 
> am conscious." That does not prove that it is conscious.
> 
> Okay. That is at least consistent with your rejection of digital mechanism. 
> (The computational theory of mind).
> 
> Do you believe that the same computation run on a classical computer *would* 
> be conscious?
>  
>  
> 
> 3. The quantum computer maintains the superposition of the multiple 
> computational traces by virtue of being isolated from the environment.
> 
> So there cannot be conscious points of view within it.
> 
> According to what theory of mind?
> 
> The theory of mind that says that conscious minds interact with the physical 
> environment.
> 
> Dreams are impossible under such a theory.

Contra-lucid dreams are impossible. Bruce could still claim that all dreams are 
lucid, (like day-dreams)  and this corroborates his statement that he knows 
when he is awake, which indeed presupposes a non digital-mechanist theory of 
mind.

Somehow, Bruce invoke a “mystical” relations between mind and matter. He is 
coherent with his non mechanist presupposition and his believe in a primitive 
irreducible physical reality, obeying some wave packet reduction. He is close 
to Stapp and Wigner where eventually consciousness is responsible for the wave 
packet reduction.

Bruno





>  
>  
> 
> 4. Our own minds are isolated from the rest of the environment for some 
> definition of the environment (e.g. a sphere with a 200 light year radius 
> centered on Earth).
> 
> The immediate environment even within our own skulls is sufficient to 
> decohere anything quantum.
> 
> Dechorence is relative.  Nothing in your brain is interacting with anything 
> 200 light years away (at least not for 200 years).
> 
> Nothing in my brain need to interact with anything 200 ly away-- it need only 
> interact with my skull (or itself) to decohere.
> 
> But coherence and decoherence are relative.  What is it about the qubits that 
> allows them to interact with other qubits and remain coherent?  Why don't 
> those other qubits count as part of their environment?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 5. From the perspective of a scientist outside this sphere, we can be viewed 
> as a superposition of many possible states.
> 
> There is no such perspective, because if he is outside the future light cone 
> he can get no information about the state at the centre. If he interacts with 
> it, 

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 05:19, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> A multitude of classical computational traces can be found in a quantum 
> computation.  You point out this multitude of computation traces can be 
> viewed as one state of a larger space.  Viewing it this way, however, doesn't 
> eliminate the multitude of the classical computational traces.
> 
> But viewing it in terms of "multiple classical computational traces" does not 
> prove that there are multiple parallel worlds. You can change the basis 
> vectors, or the clustering properties of the components, to any extent that 
> you like. That does not change the fact that there is only one overall state, 
> in one world, and no parallel worlds anywhere.
> 
> Not immediately, the logic to get to many worlds is as follows: 
> 
> 
> 1. There are multiple classical computational traces in the quantum computer.
> 
> The operation might be representable in this way. But that does not mean that 
> this is what actually happens. Description in a different base leads to a 
> different perspective.

But with mechanism, we need to take into account only the perspective with 
definite classical computational state, or crisp brain state. The superposition 
of them leads to the many histories. If the other terms disappear, something 
non linear has to be added to the wave equation (actually, even this will not 
work, as shown by Steve Weinberg, and Plaga (here, a long time ago)).




>  
> 2. If the classical computational traces are computations of conscious minds, 
> there are multiple conscious minds and points of views.
> 
> Consciousness requires decoherent interaction with an environment, and there 
> is no decoherence within the QC.


There is no decoherence at all, except in the relative state of the classical 
observer-machine.




>  
> 3. The quantum computer maintains the superposition of the multiple 
> computational traces by virtue of being isolated from the environment.
> 
> So there cannot be conscious points of view within it.

Then mechanism is false, zombie exists, etc.




>  
> 4. Our own minds are isolated from the rest of the environment for some 
> definition of the environment (e.g. a sphere with a 200 light year radius 
> centered on Earth).
> 
> The immediate environment even within our own skulls is sufficient to 
> decohere anything quantum.

Yes, but only in the eye of the beholder.

It is no more mysterious than a WM duplication. Maybe you do have a problem 
with “step 3” after all.

Bruno


>  
> 5. From the perspective of a scientist outside this sphere, we can be viewed 
> as a superposition of many possible states.
> 
> There is no such perspective, because if he is outside the future light cone 
> he can get no information about the state at the centre. If he interacts with 
> it, he decoheres it and it is just another "relative state" (single world).
> 
> 6. Hence we experience "many worlds" in the sense that the wave function for 
> the state of the earth becomes a superposition of huge number of 
> possibilities. (From the POV) of the scientist outside the sphere.
> 
> There is no such perspective. Even if there were, the "outside" observer 
> would not see a superposition, because there are no internal multiple worlds 
> -- there is only the one world with one result from the quantum computation.
> 
> This is just the "Wigner's friend" argument. And that has been shown many 
> times not to imply many worlds, or coherent superpositions of decohered 
> objects.
> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSXXYBigYub3oJ4j5NAB%2BmMVWvEYKi-ozUVTXVyqSJxjQ%40mail.gmail.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/7E385537-ABC9-4D2A-87AB-34536B43D823%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/8/2019 6:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 6. Hence we experience "many worlds" in the sense that the wave function for 
>> the state of the earth becomes a superposition of huge number of 
>> possibilities. (From the POV) of the scientist outside the sphere.
> 
> A definite and testable prediction.   Is it true?  Nope.  I only experience 
> one world.  Back to the drawing board.

Nobody experience worlds. You only experience one consciousness, but that does 
not mean that other people are conscious, even when you cannot interact with 
them.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c2a8c391-47d6-6caf-4ca3-78bf601ccf90%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/E8F1FEDD-5784-4332-BCCF-14E8E27D4014%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Does (did) 1980 exist?

[Jason Resch]

On Friday, August 9, 2019, smitra  wrote:

> I remember the year 1980, but what I remember is due to brain processes
> that exist right now. I can only ever probe the present moment, there is no
> way to prove that 1980 physically exists or existed (whatever the past
> tense is supposed to mean). So, if 1980 exists (existed) it must be
> considered to be a parallel world where the people in our memory of that
> time really exist (existed). The time evolution operator from that time to
> the present can be expanded in a basis where complete sets of commuting
> local observables are diagonal. One of the simultaneous eigenstates is the
> present world we find ourselves in. So, if we assume that 1980 is indeed
> real and the present world which is one particular component of that same
> 1980 state written in a different basis, then it's plausible that all the
> other MWI parallel worlds of 2019 are equally real.
>
>
This sounds similar to Wei Dai's "really simple interpretation of quantum
mechanics":  http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt


Regarding the reality of other points in time, while we can't disprove the
theory that the universe was created 5 seconds ago in it's current state,
it is an implication of special relativity that all points in time are real
as this paper describes:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUi5xX5L3LDtiOyLq8hcuA3df4dzEvLwQt%2BAXUp2c4yW0w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:21, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 09-08-2019 04:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> From: BRUNO MARCHAL 
 On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
 If the superposition are not relevant, then I don’t have any
 minimal physical realist account of the two slit experience, or
 even the stability of the atoms.
 Don't be obtuse, Bruno. Of course there is a superposition of the
 paths in the two slit experiment. But these are not orthogonal
 basis vectors. That is why there is interference.
>>> But each path are orthogonal. See the video of Susskind, where he
>>> use 1 and 0 to describe the boxes where we can find by which hole
>>> the particles has gone through. Then, without looking at which hole
>>> the particle has gone through, we can get the interference of the
>>> wave which is obliged to be taken as spread on both holes, and that
>>> represent the superposition of the two orthogonal state described
>>> here as 0 and 1.
>> I seldom watch long videos of lectures. But if Susskind is saying that
>> the paths taken by the particle through the two slits are orthogonal
>> then he is flatly wrong. Writing the paths as 1 and 0 does not make
>> them orthogonal. And if they were orthogonal they could not interact,
>> and you would not get interference. Two states |0> and |1> are
>> orthogonal if their overlap vanishes: <0|1> = 0. Interference comes
>> from the overlap, so if this vanishes, there is no interference.
>> Either Susskind is terminally confused, or you have misrepresented
>> him.
> 
> 
> We can measure which slit the particle moved through, therefore the two 
> states correspond to different eigenstates with different eigenvalues of the 
> observable for this, and they are therefore orthogonal.

Exactly.




> The interference pattern is apparent in a wavefunction psi(x) = 1/sqrt(2) 
> [| + ], on a  screen we can measure |psi(x)|^2, and this contains 
> the term I(x) =  Re[<0|x>]. Integrated over all space, this term will 
> vanish as it's the real part of the inner product between |0> and |1>. But as 
> a function of  x, the term [<0|x> will in general not be zero.

Exactly.

I don’t understand why Bruce says that going through slit 1 and going through 
slit 2 are not orthogonal.
At least that explains why he see so much confusion in the posts of other 
people.

That confirms the rule that if people insult you, or use dismissive tone, or 
say negative things like “you are confused”, it means that they are the one 
confused.

(Apology for that meta-remark)

Bruno



> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/95467b1b4472900733873c8fd529d7e0%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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/0F84264B-D054-4182-B714-8797A48FA8B1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> If the superposition are not relevant, then I don’t have any minimal 
>>> physical realist account of the two slit experience, or even the stability 
>>> of the atoms.
>>> Don't be obtuse, Bruno. Of course there is a superposition of the paths in 
>>> the two slit experiment. But these are not orthogonal basis vectors. That 
>>> is why there is interference.
>> 
>> But each path are orthogonal. See the video of Susskind, where he use 1 and 
>> 0 to describe the boxes where we can find by which hole the particles has 
>> gone through. Then, without looking at which hole the particle has gone 
>> through, we can get the interference of the wave which is obliged to be 
>> taken as spread on both holes, and that represent the superposition of the 
>> two orthogonal state described here as 0 and 1.
> I seldom watch long videos of lectures. But if Susskind is saying that the 
> paths taken by the particle through the two slits are orthogonal then he is 
> flatly wrong. Writing the paths as 1 and 0 does not make them orthogonal. And 
> if they were orthogonal they could not interact, and you would not get 
> interference. Two states |0> and |1> are orthogonal if their overlap 
> vanishes: <0|1> = 0. Interference comes from the overlap, so if this 
> vanishes, there is no interference.
> Either Susskind is terminally confused, or you have misrepresented him.
> 
> 

Or maybe you are wrong. Slit one is orthogonal to slit two, as much as spin in 
different direction. The interference comes from the fact that we get a 
superposition of going through slit one + going through slit two when we send a 
planar monochromatic wave on the wall with the two slits, and don’t measure 
which slit the particle go through. That is how Susskind explains the two slit 
experiment in term of entanglement. You don’t need to look at the whole video, 
I gave the position of this sub-talk in the video.

Any crisp measurement, like “which slit” gives rise to orthogonal state, which 
can interfere when superposed.

Bruno

> 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/6264a909-bb82-8204-621c-cd857752776e%40optusnet.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BC3E7110-AD6A-416B-981D-416C15A068E3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal >>> > wrote:
 
 What I use is the fact that when we have orthogonal states, like I0> and 
 I1>, I can prepare a state like (like I0> + I1>), and then I am myself in 
 the superposition state Ime>( I0> + I1>), Now, in that state, I have the 
 choice between measuring in the base {I0>, I1>} or in the base {I0> + I1>, 
 I0> - I1>). In the first case, the “parallel” history becomes 
 indetectoble, but not in the second case, so we have to take the 
 superposition into account to get the prediction right in all situations.
 
 I don't think this is actually correct. Take a concrete example that we 
 all understand. If we prepare a silver atom with spin 'up' in the 
 x-direction, then a measurement in the x direction does not produce a 
 superposition -- the answer is 'up' with 100% certainty. But is we measure 
 this state in the transverse, y-direction, the result is either 'up-y' or 
 'down-y' with equal probabilities. This is because the initial state 
 'up-x' is already a superposition of 'up-y' and 'down-y'. When we measure 
 this in the x-direction, there is no parallel history. When we measure in 
 the y-direction, we get either 'up-y' or 'down-y'. MWI says that for 
 either result, the alternative occurs in some other world. And that 
 alternative result is just as undetectable as the 'down-x' result for the 
 x-measurement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The pure state up-x is the same state as the superposition of up-y and 
>>> down-y. 
>>> Me in front of up-x and Me in front of up-y + down-y are only different 
>>> description of the same state. When measuring that state in the 
>>> x-direction, I don’t made that y-superposition disappears.
>>> 
>>> All you are saying here is that if you measure the up-x state in the x 
>>> direction, the state does not change -- it is still a   
>>>   superposition of up-y and down-y. Of course, if the state is not changed 
>>> it does not change. Tautologies are not very useful.
>> 
>> OK, but you are saying that “ When we measure this in the x-direction, there 
>> is no parallel history”, like if the superposition did disappear, that is 
>> why I remind the tautology. They did not.
> The state can still be represented as a superposition in some other basis, 
> true. But this fact is of no practical significance for the operation in 
> question -- measurement of the x-polarization.
> 
> I think there is a basic confusion in your thinking between basis states and 
> "other worlds". You want to maintain the fiction that descriptions in terms 
> of alternative basis states are somehow "real". But descriptions are not 
> physical states, relative or otherwise.
> 

But they participate in the personal histories of the superposed state of the 
observers. And they do provide many relative states.




> 
>> Let us use “superposition of state” instead. The word “world” has too much 
>> metaphysical implicit connotations.
> You object to the use of the word "world" in order to cover this confusion 
> between basis states and worlds. A parallel world is a well-defined concept.
> 
We can make attempt to make it precise, like the transitive closure of 
interaction. In that case, if I look at the Schroedinger cat, I just entangle 
myself with it, and I end up in the superposition state “seeing the cat dead + 
seeing the cat alive”. Then if I interact with you, you end up in the 
superposition state “listening to me saying that the cat is alive” + "listening 
to me saying that the cat is dead”, and the entire universe, splits or 
differentiate locally through those (stepped light limited) interaction.



> I have defined it several times, and the basic characteristics are 
> orthogonality and non-interaction, inaccessibility. Expressing a state in 
> terms of some alternative set of basis vectors is, of course, always 
> possible, and that changes the superposition, but it does not change the 
> original state. In particular, it does not create additional "relative 
> states" or "worlds". The description of a state is not the state: changing 
> the description does not change the state.
> 
> 

No problem with this.


> It is like your oft-repeated assertion that "2+2=4" is not the same as two 
> plus two equals four. But they are the same,
> 
?

No, they are not. “2+2=4” is a syntactical sequence of symbol. 2+2 = 4 is a 
fact, that you might consider true or false.




> they are both just descriptions of the physical operation of adding two 
> objects to two 

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 02:59, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:50 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> > On 7 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On 8/7/2019 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> It is like the difference between the human existence and the human non 
> >> existence, for an alien situated in a very far away galaxy. The fact that 
> >> this alien cannot detect us does not make the human disappearing.
> >> 
> >> It is like the other side of the moon before we built rocket.
> >> 
> >> It is like taking our theory at fave value, instead of eliminating some 
> >> terms in the equation by sheer coquetry.
> > 
> > Except in the case of quantum mechanics the theory you are saying predicts 
> > other worlds, also predicts they are inaccessible.
> 
> That is right, but the theory predicts that they are indirectly playing an 
> important role without which QM explains nothing.
> 
> No, the theory does not predict that these parallel worlds are playing an 
> important role. The theory (QM) explicitly predicts that such other worlds 
> are orthogonal to observation; they do not interact; and they are in 
> principle inaccessible. They can, therefore, play no "important role without 
> which QM explains nothing". I think you are very confused about how QM works, 
> Bruno.
> 

The theory does not predict that the superposition plays an important role. 
That is simply contradicted by the two slit experiments.  No interaction does 
not imply no statistical interference, or QM would not makes any sense at all. 
Dirac considered the principle of superposition as the main quantum feature.

“Parallel world” is the same as superposition of state/histories. 

Bruno





> 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/CAFxXSLTbCdVpGCNJiNpDCpH1v1oUc9jVNbe%3Dd81pw8QqiMTEDw%40mail.gmail.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/A64E1A61-C398-4003-9673-38ED59AC15B2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/8/2019 11:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:24 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/8/2019 3:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/7/2019 8:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 
 
 On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 >>> > wrote:
 
 
 On 8/7/2019 2:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  >
>wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/7/2019 8:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > This is made most clear in the case of a quantum computer.  Where the 
> > quantum computer can be viewed as one WORLD (def 1) that contains many 
> > little worlds (def 2), where each computational trace constitutes its 
> > own little world, causally isolated from the rest. 
> 
> Except those computational traces DO NOT constitute little worlds. They 
> are not causally isolated.  The whole function of the computer depends 
> on them interacting, i.e. interfering coherently.
> 
> 
> It depends on the algorithm.
> 
> If, as in my neural net example, interference is not used, the many 
> computations are causally isolated, and will remain so (FAPP) once I read 
> the output bits.
> 
> You seem to want it both ways. "Yes they are many worlds, but they're not 
> entirely or always completely causally isolated, so they're not really 
> separate worlds."
 
 You're the one who introduced worlds and little worlds.  My point is just 
 that doing computations with lots of qubits doesn't imply there are 
 separate worlds in which the computations happen; in fact it requires the 
 contrary if the computation is to come to a single conclusion. 
 
 No disagreement with that, but my point all along is that "many 
 somethings" associated with the qubits in the quantum computer, can lead 
 to many minds which can have many experiences, when the quantum computer 
 executes computational traces which create conscious states.  Do you 
 disagree with this?
>>> 
>>> No.  As far as I know minds are classical like processes in brains.
>>> 
>>> Quantum logic gates are Turing complete. This means quantum computers can 
>>> emulate any classical computation.  So in certain algorithms, the 
>>> components of the superposition are traces of distinct classical 
>>> computations.
>>> 
>>>  
>>>   That's why you are never really "of two minds".  Superpositions 
>>> corresponding to neurons firing and not-firing decohere far too quickly.  
>>> See Tegmark's paper.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I'm aware of it. It's about decoherence times of biological neurons to 
>>> disprove the Penrose idea that brains exploit quantum mechanics to somehow 
>>> overcome incompleteness.
>>> 
>>> The point of using a quantum computer in my example is that decoherence 
>>> doesn't happen until after the computational traces have all been realized.
>>> 
>>> If I understand your position correctly, you believe the distinct 
>>> computational traces exist but that they're not consciousness, because you 
>>> postulate decoherence at each step of the computation is necessary?
>>> 
>>> Would this not make Wigner's friend into a zombie (or any AI or brain 
>>> emulation performed on a quantum computer)?  Does my clarification of the 
>>> Turing completeness of Quantum logic gates do anything to amend your 
>>> opinion?
>> 
>> I think that thought must be essentially classical.  Otherwise, according to 
>> MWI, we would not be aware of the classical world, but only of the state 
>> vector.  It's the same reason Bohr insisted on a classical world for science 
>> to be possible.  There must be definite sharable results.  So I think this 
>> applies within a single brain as well as between Wigner and his friends.  
>> The interesting question is why are we aware of the projection or 
>> decoherence onto certain bases and not others, and could consciousness be 
>> realized differently?
>> 
>> I agree human consciousness is the result of an effectively classical 
>> computation.
>> 
>> This is why I insist that the quantum computer, (whose components represent 
>> many individual classical computations), can instantiate a multitude of 
>> individual brains, each potentially having a unique experience.
>> 
>> Quantum computers can emulate any classical computation.  If a brain 
>> emulated on a quantum computer answers "no" when asked the question "are you 
>> conscious?" while the same brain emulated on a Pentium III 

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/8/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Except in the case of quantum mechanics the theory you are saying predicts 
>>> other worlds, also predicts they are inaccessible.
>> That is right, but the theory predicts that they are indirectly playing an 
>> important role without which QM explains nothing.
> 
> But this is quite different from classical theories, that for example the 
> dark side of the Moon exists.  In that case the theory also predicts that it 
> is possible to go to the dark side of the Moon.   A theory that predicts X 
> but also that X is inaccessible and has no possible effect is a theory that 
> could discard X.


The theory predicts that X is inaccessible for interaction, but indirectly 
manageable through statistical interference. Indeed, that is how we can predict 
where the particle will land in the two slits experiments. That is why we need 
to distinguish pure state and mixture. The many superposition are not 
accessible once we belong to a term, but there is no reason (except some 
dualist non-mechanist theory of mind ) to make them disappear in that case. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30cb9ad1-77d4-1c53-af85-09cdb27c0674%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/ABAD0EDA-DCB8-4F9D-9B00-92F25B2978F9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2019, at 02:23, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:30 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> On 7 Aug 2019, at 14:41, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
 
 Superpositions are fine. It is just that they do not consist of "parallel 
 worlds”.
>>> 
>>> But then by QM linearity, it is easy to prepare a superposition with 
>>> orthogonal histories, like me seing a cat dead and me seeing a cat alive, 
>>> when I look at the Schoredinger cat. Yes, decoherence makes hard for me to 
>>> detect the superposition I am in, but it does not make it going away 
>>> (unless you invoke some wave packet reduction of course)
  
 “Parallel worlds/histories” are just a popular name to describe a 
 superposition.
 
 In your dreams, maybe. There is a clear and precise definition of separate 
 worlds: they are orthogonal states that do not interact. The absence of 
 possible interaction means that they are not superpositions.
>>> 
>>> That is weird.
>>> The branches of a superposition never interact. The point is that they can 
>>> interfere statistically, if not there is no superposition, nor 
>>> interference, only a mixture.
>>> 
>>> There some to be some fluidity is the concepts of superposition and basis 
>>> vectors inherent in this discussion. Any vector space can be spanned by a 
>>> set of orthogonal basis vectors. There are an infinite number of such 
>>> bases, plus the possibility of non-orthogonal bases given by any set of 
>>> vectors that span the space. If the basis vectors are orthogonal, these 
>>> basis vectors do not interact. But any general vector can be expressed as a 
>>> superposition of these orthogonal basis vectors. (Orthonormal basis for a 
>>> normed Hilbert space.)
>>> 
>>> So the question whether the branches of a superposition can interact 
>>> (interfere) or not is simply a matter of whether the branches are 
>>> orthogonal or not. If we have a superposition of orthogonal basis vectors, 
>>> then the branches do not interact. However, if we have a superposition of 
>>> non-orthogonal vector, then the branches can interact.
>>> 
>>> For example, the wave packet for a free electron is a superposition of 
>>> momentum eigenstates (and position eigenstates). These momentum eigenstates 
>>> are orthogonal and do not interact. The overlap function  = 0 for all 
>>> p not equal to p'. This is the definition of orthogonal states. But this 
>>> does not mean that the wave packet of the electron is a mixture: It is a 
>>> pure state since there is a basis of the corresponding Hilbert space for 
>>> which the actual state is one of the basis vectors. (We can construct an 
>>> orthonormal set of basis vectors around this vector.)  On the other hand, 
>>> the two paths that can be taken by a particle traversing a two-slit 
>>> interference experiment are not orthogonal, so these paths can interact. So 
>>> when the quantum state is written as a superposition of such paths, there 
>>> is interference.
>>> 
>>> Orthogonality is the key difference between things that can interfere and 
>>> those that cannot. So if separate worlds are orthogonal, there can be no 
>>> interference between them, and the absence of such interaction defines the 
>>> worlds as separate.
>> 
>> What I use is the fact that when we have orthogonal states, like I0> and 
>> I1>, I can prepare a state like (like I0> + I1>), and then I am myself in 
>> the superposition state Ime>( I0> + I1>), Now, in that state, I have the 
>> choice between measuring in the base {I0>, I1>} or in the base {I0> + I1>, 
>> I0> - I1>). In the first case, the “parallel” history becomes indetectoble, 
>> but not in the second case, so we have to take the superposition into 
>> account to get the prediction right in all situations.
>> 
>> I don't think this is actually correct. Take a concrete example that we all 
>> understand. If we prepare a silver atom with spin 'up' in the x-direction, 
>> then a measurement in the x direction does not produce a superposition -- 
>> the answer is 'up' with 100% certainty. But is we measure this state in the 
>> transverse, y-direction, the result is either 'up-y' or 'down-y' with equal 
>> probabilities. This is because the initial state 'up-x' is already a 
>> superposition of 'up-y' and 'down-y'. When we measure this in the 
>> x-direction, there is no parallel history. When we measure in the 
>> y-direction, we get either 'up-y' or 'down-y'. MWI says that for either 
>> result, the alternative occurs in some other world. And that alternative 
>> result is just as 

Re: STEP 3

[smitra]

On 09-08-2019 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:16 PM smitra  wrote:


On 09-08-2019 05:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:


It is really quite simple. If a state is a sum of two components,
|psi> = (|A> + |B>), then we measure  = (

+

|B>) =  +  + 2. If  does not vanish (the
components are not orthogonal), then there is interference. For
orthogonal components  = 0, and there is no interference.
Introducing separate states for the two slits does not aid
comprehension here.


Nonsense.


What is nonsense? The fact that separate states for the two slits does
not aid comprehension? Or the fact that orthogonal states do not
interfere?



Your statement that orthogonal states don't interfere is plain nonsense.


What we observe at a point x on the screen is the expectation
value of the projection operator |x>

No, we don't observe an expectation value, which is a weighted average
over possible outcomes. We measure a particular outcome at each point
on the screen.



And that's precisely given by the expectation value of the projection 
operator |x>

 = psi*(x) psi(x) = |psi(x)|^2

Saibal

--
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/6fc955090e38f63960338d7164c116fe%40zonnet.nl.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:59 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>> You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and
>> implying what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this
>> line of reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors
>> the 1000 bit semi-prime.
>>
>
> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime: by
> rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>

I could, perhaps, expand a bit here. You are the ones who swallow Bruno's
idea that the whole of physics is supported by the computations of the
universal dovetailer in arithmetic (platonia). Why do you then find it so
hard to believe that the computations to factorize large semi-prime numbers
cannot all be maintained in a high-dimensional abstract Hilbert space? The
computations there are not all that complicated -- just simple rotations of
a vector in  a 2^n dimensional space.

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/CAFxXSLRSBXcOFwXVjVyt4f60tqRZsTbsWO%2B5svZLsqDXku%2BzZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Quantum Measure Theory

[Philip Thrift]

video:

*The quantum measure (and how to measure it)*
Rafael Sorkin 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJb47yt9hgc


references:

*Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Measure Theory*
Rafael D. Sorkin
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9401003

The additivity of classical probabilities is only the first in a hierarchy 
of possible sum-rules, each of which implies its successor. The first and 
most restrictive sum-rule of the hierarchy yields measure-theory in the 
Kolmogorov sense, which physically is appropriate for the description of 
stochastic processes such as Brownian motion. The next weaker sum-rule 
defines a {\it generalized measure theory} which includes quantum mechanics 
as a special case. The fact that quantum probabilities can be expressed 
``as the squares of quantum amplitudes'' is thus derived in a natural 
manner, and a series of natural generalizations of the quantum formalism is 
delineated. Conversely, the mathematical sense in which classical physics 
is a special case of quantum physics is clarified. The present paper 
presents these relationships in the context of a ``realistic'' 
interpretation of quantum mechanics.


*Quantum Measure Theory and its Interpretation*
Rafael D. Sorkin 
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9507057

We propose a realistic, spacetime interpretation of quantum theory in which 
reality constitutes a *single* history obeying a "law of motion" that makes 
definite, but incomplete, predictions about its behavior. We associate a 
"quantum measure" |S| to the set S of histories, and point out that |S| 
fulfills a sum rule generalizing that of classical probability theory. We 
interpret |S| as a "propensity", making this precise by stating a criterion 
for |S|=0 to imply "preclusion" (meaning that the true history will not lie 
in S). The criterion involves triads of correlated events, and in 
application to electron-electron scattering, for example, it yields 
definite predictions about the electron trajectories themselves, 
independently of any measuring devices which might or might not be present. 
(So we can give an objective account of measurements.) Two unfinished 
aspects of the interpretation involve *conditonal* preclusion (which 
apparently requires a notion of coarse-graining for its formulation) and 
the need to "locate spacetime regions in advance" without the aid of a 
fixed background metric (which can be achieved in the context of 
conditional preclusion via a construction which makes sense both in 
continuum gravity and in the discrete setting of causal set theory).


*Dynamical Wave Function Collapse Models in Quantum Measure Theory*
Fay Dowker, Yousef Ghazi-Tabatabai
https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2924
The structure of Collapse Models is investigated in the framework of 
Quantum Measure Theory, a histories-based approach to quantum mechanics. 
The underlying structure of coupled classical and quantum systems is 
elucidated in this approach which puts both systems on a spacetime footing. 
The nature of the coupling is exposed: the classical histories have no 
dynamics of their own but are simply tied, more or less closely, to the 
quantum histories.


other references:

*Quantum measure theory*
Stan Gudder
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ms.2010.60.issue-5/s12175-010-0040-8/s12175-010-0040-8.xml

*Quantum measure and integration theory*
Stan Gudder
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3267867



@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/66cd7523-f875-485f-858c-e6277878981c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: STEP 3

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:52 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:19 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Resch 
 wrote:

> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:50 AM Jason Resch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A multitude of classical computational traces can be found in a
>>> quantum computation.  You point out this multitude of computation traces
>>> can be viewed as one state of a larger space.  Viewing it this way,
>>> however, doesn't eliminate the multitude of the classical computational
>>> traces.
>>>
>>
>> But viewing it in terms of "multiple classical computational traces"
>> does not prove that there are multiple parallel worlds. You can change 
>> the
>> basis vectors, or the clustering properties of the components, to any
>> extent that you like. That does not change the fact that there is only 
>> one
>> overall state, in one world, and no parallel worlds anywhere.
>>
>
> Not immediately, the logic to get to many worlds is as follows:
>
>
> 1. There are multiple classical computational traces in the quantum
> computer.
>

 The operation might be representable in this way. But that does not
 mean that this is what actually happens. Description in a different base
 leads to a different perspective.

>>>
>>> You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and
>>> implying what I suppose to be happening is not really real), but then this
>>> line of reasoning fails to give any account of how Shor's algorithm factors
>>> the 1000 bit semi-prime.
>>>
>>
>> We have explained how Shor's algorithm factors the 1000 bit semi-prime:
>> by rotations in the 2^1000dimension Hilbert space -- all one world.
>>
>>
>
> Can we agree then that this 2^1000 dimensional Hilbert space is more than
> just a matter of some perspective?
>

The Hilbert space is the quantum description of the 1000 qbits.


2. If the classical computational traces are computations of conscious
> minds, there are multiple conscious minds and points of views.
>

 Consciousness requires decoherent interaction with an environment, and
 there is no decoherence within the QC.

>>>
>>> Then you get either (a) violations of Church-Turing or (b) philosophical
>>> zombies. Which do you suppose it is?
>>>
>>
>> Philosophical zombies, assuming that these computations report "I am
>> conscious". They are actually lying. I can write a program that prints out
>> "I am conscious." That does not prove that it is conscious.
>>
>
> Okay. That is at least consistent with your rejection of digital
> mechanism. (The computational theory of mind).
>
> Do you believe that the same computation run on a classical computer
> *would* be conscious?
>

What computation? A conscious computation on a QC will be conscious if it
is performed on a classical computer. But for this computation to be
conscious, the QC is no different from a CC.


3. The quantum computer maintains the superposition of the multiple
> computational traces by virtue of being isolated from the environment.
>

 So there cannot be conscious points of view within it.

>>>
>>> According to what theory of mind?
>>>
>>
>> The theory of mind that says that conscious minds interact with the
>> physical environment.
>>
>
> Dreams are impossible under such a theory.
>

Dreams are the product of unconscious interactions with the environment --
of the brain if not of the external environment.


4. Our own minds are isolated from the rest of the environment for some
> definition of the environment (e.g. a sphere with a 200 light year radius
> centered on Earth).
>

 The immediate environment even within our own skulls is sufficient to
 decohere anything quantum.

>>>
>>> Dechorence is relative.  Nothing in your brain is interacting with
>>> anything 200 light years away (at least not for 200 years).
>>>
>>
>> Nothing in my brain need to interact with anything 200 ly away-- it need
>> only interact with my skull (or itself) to decohere.
>>
>
> But coherence and decoherence are relative.  What is it about the qubits
> that allows them to interact with other qubits and remain coherent?  Why
> don't those other qubits count as part of their environment?
>

Coherence is the maintenance of phase relations. Phase relations between
qbits and their interference is what make the QC work. Decoherence involves
entanglement with uncountable environmental degrees of freedom. One cannot
maintain the phase relations under this conditions. Why do you think
quantum computers are so hard to construct and operate?


5. From the perspective of a scientist outside this sphere, we can be
> viewed as a