Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/29/2019 6:13 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:27:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:


On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
List wrote:

 When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single
 universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an 
upper
 bound for information capacity of it's surface area in Planck units.  
This
 number is around 2.4e106.  So as I read Zurek, he thinks this provides 
a kind
 of probability cutoff and branches less probable than 0.4e-106 have 
zero
 probability.   And, more to the point, in the limit of large N, where 
N is the
 number of degrees of freedom in the environment the off diagonal terms 
of the
 reduced density matrix go to zero; but this cutoff makes them exactly 
zero for
 N>2.41e106.  I haven't figured out many branchings it would take to 
reach this
 number, but with some 1e98 particles it wouldn't take very many.

 Brent

 Its an interesting idea, and a plausible mechanism for denying the
 "no cul-de-sac conjecture" and quantum immortality.

 However, I do have to wonder the significance of a 2.4x10^106 planck
 distance quare hubble volume. This surely is a geographical factoid
 rather than of fundamental significance.


It's not just geographical.  The Bekenstein bound on the information that can
be contained within a the Hubble sphere depends on how big the sphere is which
in turn depends on the expansion rate of the universe.  The expansion rate of
the universe might be a fundamental constant.

Brent


Wouldn't it also depend on when you are observing the universe?

True.  It wouldn't really be constant.

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/19fdb5a5-c522-79aa-d99f-8b0fcf61802d%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:32 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I think the alternative is something suggested by Zurek.  He shows that
> decoherence plus einselection will make the reduced density matrix strictly
> diagonal, i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born
> rule.  Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot
> have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal
> and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born
> rule.  This is what Carroll would dismiss as a "disappearing world
> interpretation"; but it would provide a physical principle for why worlds
> disappear, i.e. branches of lowest probability are continually pruned.
>

I don't think this is exactly what Zurek is arguing. He mentions Halliwell,
but is concerned more with Quantum Darwism, which is an account of the
records left in the environment by the system, than with the effects of
decoherence on the system itself -- as would be the case if the limits on
environmental information set some probabilities to zero. He says:

"Copying yields branches of records inscribed in subsystems of E. Initial
superposition yields superposition of branches, so there is no literal
collapse. However, fragments of E can reveal only one branch (and not their
superposition). Such evidence will suggest 'quantum jump' from
superposition to a single  outcome."

So it is the fact that our access is limited to only fragments of the the
entire environment that leads to the perception of collapse -- our
inability to see the superposition, or to reverse the measurement. If you
take only a portion of the complete state you certainly reduce the pure
state to a mixture. This is not a particularly new position, being in line
with the IGUS ideas of Gell-Mann and others.

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/CAFxXSLTh9Vbi%2BXrwpuwcuNMAi%2BH5L6kgEaM1BtwKrhshk0DW6g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:27:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
> List wrote:
> 
> When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single
> universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an 
> upper
> bound for information capacity of it's surface area in Planck units.  
> This
> number is around 2.4e106.  So as I read Zurek, he thinks this 
> provides a kind
> of probability cutoff and branches less probable than 0.4e-106 have 
> zero
> probability.   And, more to the point, in the limit of large N, where 
> N is the
> number of degrees of freedom in the environment the off diagonal 
> terms of the
> reduced density matrix go to zero; but this cutoff makes them exactly 
> zero for
> N>2.41e106.  I haven't figured out many branchings it would take to 
> reach this
> number, but with some 1e98 particles it wouldn't take very many.
> 
> Brent
> 
> Its an interesting idea, and a plausible mechanism for denying the
> "no cul-de-sac conjecture" and quantum immortality.
> 
> However, I do have to wonder the significance of a 2.4x10^106 planck
> distance quare hubble volume. This surely is a geographical factoid
> rather than of fundamental significance.
> 
> 
> It's not just geographical.  The Bekenstein bound on the information that can
> be contained within a the Hubble sphere depends on how big the sphere is which
> in turn depends on the expansion rate of the universe.  The expansion rate of
> the universe might be a fundamental constant.
> 
> Brent
>

Wouldn't it also depend on when you are observing the universe?


-- 


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/20190930011334.GD31717%40zen.

Re: Quantum Lisp

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 12:07:11PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:13:36 AM UTC-5, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >
[...]
> > Well, my snark remark have been written because something in me told 
> > me you were asking with tongue in cheek. And maybe because I consider 
> > subject to be either old and dead or very very futuristic. 
> >
[...]
> > (I use "LISP" with meaning "one of LISP family", so you would probably 
> > want to substitude LISP with any of your preferrence: LISP, Autolisp, 
> > R7RS, CL, Elisp, scm or what have you). 
[...]
> 
> Racket
>   
>  https://racket-lang.org/
> 
> seems to be where a lot of Lispers go to now.

Hum, not me. I used to like and avere Racket, but they steer away from
Scheme (as far as I understand things) and more towards being
independent from it. I am not blaming them, but I do not have to go
the same way. And the talk they had in July about letting go of
parentheses-based syntax was not something I wanted to read.

Certainly, they will try to keep backwards compatibility and since I
could still write R5RS in IDE some time ago, I guess it will probably
be so, for a while.

Regardless of planned changes, yes, Racket is going strong these
days. Long term, Racket may end up being another Python. Or Lua. I
think I will wait some more time and see how things unfold. No bad
feeling towards any particular programming language, but I prefer
those which allow for rewriting as little as possible of old code
while they evolve and I am yet to see how Racket is going to fare.

If I planned to keep using Lisp, I would have probably stuck with CL
and/or R7RS Scheme. There is some nice looking effort to standardize
libraries (when possible) for R7RS Scheme-s, so I think there is life
after Racket, too.

> It is used for 
> 
> – language-oriented programming 
> 
> – language “workbenches 
> 
> (Racket came from Scheme - get the naming joke?)

If you say there is a joke, I have to trust your word for it :-).

> I was in TI's 1980s AI Lab that made the TI Lisp Machine. Here's something 
> I did:
> 
> *Common Lisp relations: an extension of Lisp for logic programming*
> Philip R. Thrift
> Proceedings. 1988 International Conference on Computer Languages
> [abstract 
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> I'm toying with a new language extension I invented:
> 
> CLIPjoint
> Concurrent Logic Implementation of Processes
> (embedded in Racket)
> 

Ok, I got it. Your count of parentheses is bigger than mine.

> Maybe someone should work on a Racket workbench for quantum programming?
> 
> Heres's a Racket workbench for Python:
> - 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbf5/ee924abd50596657f96f7e1a0c51c9854ed7.pdf

Maybe. Out of curiosity, what actually does it mean, "Racket workbench
for quantum programming"? What is such thing supposed to do? Why it
would be better than just a library of Scheme functions/macros?

Wrt "workbench for Python", I am not sure if I ever heard of it before
and I wonder how this effort will be going in the future. Python has
been evolving, IMHO, from elegant language of late 1990-ties into some
kind of blob. And Racket itself is going to evolve a bit too. So
maintaing the stuff might be like kicking one dead whale uphills while
dragging another tied to one's neck.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.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/20190929230218.GC12070%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:

When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single
universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an upper
bound for information capacity of it's surface area in Planck units.  This
number is around 2.4e106.  So as I read Zurek, he thinks this provides a kind
of probability cutoff and branches less probable than 0.4e-106 have zero
probability.   And, more to the point, in the limit of large N, where N is the
number of degrees of freedom in the environment the off diagonal terms of the
reduced density matrix go to zero; but this cutoff makes them exactly zero for
N>2.41e106.  I haven't figured out many branchings it would take to reach this
number, but with some 1e98 particles it wouldn't take very many.

Brent

Its an interesting idea, and a plausible mechanism for denying the
"no cul-de-sac conjecture" and quantum immortality.

However, I do have to wonder the significance of a 2.4x10^106 planck
distance quare hubble volume. This surely is a geographical factoid
rather than of fundamental significance.


It's not /just/ geographical.  The Bekenstein bound on the information 
that can be contained within a the Hubble sphere depends on how big the 
sphere is which in turn depends on the expansion rate of the universe.  
The expansion rate of the universe might be a fundamental constant.


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/3486cb06-e8c2-e8eb-d3c1-63f67642e592%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single
> universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an upper
> bound for information capacity of it's surface area in Planck units.  This
> number is around 2.4e106.  So as I read Zurek, he thinks this provides a kind
> of probability cutoff and branches less probable than 0.4e-106 have zero
> probability.   And, more to the point, in the limit of large N, where N is the
> number of degrees of freedom in the environment the off diagonal terms of the
> reduced density matrix go to zero; but this cutoff makes them exactly zero for
> N>2.41e106.  I haven't figured out many branchings it would take to reach this
> number, but with some 1e98 particles it wouldn't take very many.
> 
> Brent

Its an interesting idea, and a plausible mechanism for denying the
"no cul-de-sac conjecture" and quantum immortality.

However, I do have to wonder the significance of a 2.4x10^106 planck
distance quare hubble volume. This surely is a geographical factoid
rather than of fundamental significance.


-- 


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/20190929221524.GC31717%40zen.

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2019 1:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/2019 5:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > The claim of panprotopsychism*  is not that simple material (or in 
>> > this case, arithmetical) entities think, but they manifest the 
>> > (proto-thinking) ingredients that when combined into more complex 
>> > entities think. 
>>
>> But then it adds nothing to the materialist theory that thinking is a 
>> certain process that some sufficiently complex systems can do. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
> Some AI scientists say that an AI can't really think until it is 
> conscious. So the most advanced Watson (can answer any academic question in 
> a  Wikipedia-automatic way) or whatever can't be said to be a thinking 
> machine. So if one thinks consciousness is a real thing, then what does 
> "complex"  mean for a system to be conscious?
>
>
> Whatever you meant by it: "... they manifest the (proto-thinking) 
> ingredients that when combined into more *complex* entities think." 
>
> Brent
>
>
> Obviously consciousness is material because the matter in our skulls 
> (sometimes) has it, and matter is all there is.
>
> But what is the "complex" (what does that word even mean?) nature of that 
> matter?
>
> @philipthriftlist/e85e5488-6693-4107-a343-02c617a1c8ed%40googlegroups.com 
> 
> .
>
>
>


What I was thinking :) there is what would be called *material 
(chemical/biological) complexity*, vs. other meanings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Varied_meanings

It's true the "complex/complexity" term is used too loosely: A sort of *deus 
ex complexitus* where something can just happen because, you know, 
complexity makes it work.

@phiipthrift

-- 
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/607af22d-079a-4423-b33b-b4097b03364d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/29/2019 1:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 9/15/2019 5:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> The claim of panprotopsychism*  is not that simple material (or in
> this case, arithmetical) entities think, but they manifest the
> (proto-thinking) ingredients that when combined into more complex
> entities think.

But then it adds nothing to the materialist theory that thinking is a
certain process that some sufficiently complex systems can do.

Brent


Some AI scientists say that an AI can't really think until it is 
conscious. So the most advanced Watson (can answer any academic 
question in a  Wikipedia-automatic way) or whatever can't be said to 
be a thinking machine. So if one thinks consciousness is a real thing, 
then what does "complex"  mean for a system to be conscious?


Whatever you meant by it: "... they manifest the (proto-thinking) 
ingredients that when combined into more /*complex*/ entities think."


Brent



Obviously consciousness is material because the matter in our skulls 
(sometimes) has it, and matter is all there is.


But what is the "complex" (what does that word even mean?) nature of 
that matter?


@philipthriftlist/e85e5488-6693-4107-a343-02c617a1c8ed%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/4c8c882f-1a96-71fb-3fcc-4e21bd39ddbf%40verizon.net.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:42 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>You agree with me that you have survived for another day if there is
> something today that remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday, and that's
> fine but then you immediately contradict yourself by talking about *THE* first
> person even if there is a machine that can produce many things that have
> that property. And your pitiful attempt to cover up this enormous
> discrepancy by introducing the idea of *THE* first person from *THE* first
> person are laughable.
>
>
> > *Not, it is quasi tautological with the definition given of the first
> person. And even kids understand that both fist person will understand what
> was meant by the use of the term*
>

You may be able to convince kids that you are not talking gibberish but I
am not a kid and you haven't convinced me and you haven't convinced even
one of the 2,382 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2o5AjOQw7TWgXAWs96rttKh-vgz7%2BWVBjrsB0dEtpusA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum Supremacy.

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Here is a copy of that leaked paper:
>
> Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor 
> 
>
> I found these quotes from it to be particularly interesting:
>
>
> *"We show that quantum speedup is achievable in a real-world system and 
> isnot precluded by any hidden physical laws." *
>
> *"Our processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of the 
> quantum circuit 1 million times, a state-of-the-art supercomputer would 
> require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task."*
>
> *"Quantum processors based on superconducting qubits can now perform 
> computations in a Hilbert space of dimension 2^53 ≈ 9 × 10^15, beyond the 
> reach of the fastest classical supercomputers available today. To our 
> knowledge, this experiment marks the first computation that can only be 
> performed on a quantum processor."*
>
> *"Quantum processors have thus reached the regime of quantum supremacy. We 
> expect their computational power will continue to grow at a double 
> exponential rate"*
>
> For me the most stunning thing about the entire article is the 3 words 
> "double 
> exponential rate"
>
> John K Clark
>




When I see New *largest number factored* on a quantum device is 56,153

in quantum computing news, I don't know what I'm supposed to get interested 
about.

@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/e45cff9a-3b9e-440d-96d4-76a3c17d47bc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Lisp

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 11:13:36 AM UTC-5, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote: 
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:35:53PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > > 
> > > For Lisp(s)/Scheme/Racket fans: 
> > > 
> [...] 
> > > 
> > > Other quantum/Lisp refs? 
> > 
> > PicoLisp: 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp 
> > 
> > As the name suggests, they really are after quantum effects. It is 
> > just Lisp part which does not fit such sizes very well (i.e., too big). 
>
> Well, my snark remark have been written because something in me told 
> me you were asking with tongue in cheek. And maybe because I consider 
> subject to be either old and dead or very very futuristic. 
>
> On top of this, my horoscope told me I would be required to be 
> creative about something I have no idea about. 
>
> MHO on 
>
> Overally, LISP family of languages are nice fit for experiments with 
> language extension - simple syntax makes it easy to create one's own 
> libraries which then look like part of the language themselves. And 
> macros. Original implementation of object oriented system is quite 
> often written as loadable library in LISP. Which means, one can extend 
> language on a whim. It also means, there may be many competing 
> extensions, each doing only some of what I need. Or 
> half-implemented... 
>
> This also means, one can program one's code in, say, LISP, as 
> usual. When some clever folk comes up with idea, all references to car 
> and cdr will be updated with their quantum counterparts inside newly 
> created LISP interpreter. In about... ten years from now? I guess they 
> will have one such flight computer onboard of manned Moon 
> mission... It should be so much easier to dodge asteroids, since an 
> asteroid would never know which way the ship went, until they met. 
>
> (I use "LISP" with meaning "one of LISP family", so you would probably 
> want to substitude LISP with any of your preferrence: LISP, Autolisp, 
> R7RS, CL, Elisp, scm or what have you). 
>
> MHO off 
>
> -- 
> Regards, 
> Tomasz Rola 
>
> -- 
>

** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  ** 
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** 
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  ** 
> ** ** 
> ** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomas...@bigfoot.com





Racket
  
 https://racket-lang.org/

seems to be where a lot of Lispers go to now.

It is used for 

– language-oriented programming 

– language “workbenches 

(Racket came from Scheme - get the naming joke?)

I was in TI's 1980s AI Lab that made the TI Lisp Machine. Here's something 
I did:

*Common Lisp relations: an extension of Lisp for logic programming*
Philip R. Thrift
Proceedings. 1988 International Conference on Computer Languages
[abstract 

]


I'm toying with a new language extension I invented:

CLIPjoint
Concurrent Logic Implementation of Processes
(embedded in Racket)




Maybe someone should work on a Racket workbench for quantum programming?

Heres's a Racket workbench for Python:
- 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbf5/ee924abd50596657f96f7e1a0c51c9854ed7.pdf

etc.

LISP, Lisp, and all its descendants are for the language people.

@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/6e02e101-136e-4076-bee5-5cf8620afb18%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Lisp

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 04:56:00PM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:35:53PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > 
> > For Lisp(s)/Scheme/Racket fans:
> > 
[...]
> > 
> > Other quantum/Lisp refs?
> 
> PicoLisp:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp
> 
> As the name suggests, they really are after quantum effects. It is
> just Lisp part which does not fit such sizes very well (i.e., too big).

Well, my snark remark have been written because something in me told
me you were asking with tongue in cheek. And maybe because I consider
subject to be either old and dead or very very futuristic.

On top of this, my horoscope told me I would be required to be
creative about something I have no idea about.

MHO on

Overally, LISP family of languages are nice fit for experiments with
language extension - simple syntax makes it easy to create one's own
libraries which then look like part of the language themselves. And
macros. Original implementation of object oriented system is quite
often written as loadable library in LISP. Which means, one can extend
language on a whim. It also means, there may be many competing
extensions, each doing only some of what I need. Or
half-implemented...

This also means, one can program one's code in, say, LISP, as
usual. When some clever folk comes up with idea, all references to car
and cdr will be updated with their quantum counterparts inside newly
created LISP interpreter. In about... ten years from now? I guess they
will have one such flight computer onboard of manned Moon
mission... It should be so much easier to dodge asteroids, since an
asteroid would never know which way the ship went, until they met.

(I use "LISP" with meaning "one of LISP family", so you would probably
want to substitude LISP with any of your preferrence: LISP, Autolisp,
R7RS, CL, Elisp, scm or what have you).

MHO off

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.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/20190929161323.GB12070%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Re: Quantum Supremacy.

[Lawrence Crowell]

I would be most curious to know how they arrive at double exponential. I 
have not yet read this paper.

LC

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Here is a copy of that leaked paper:
>
> Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor 
> 
>
> I found these quotes from it to be particularly interesting:
>
>
> *"We show that quantum speedup is achievable in a real-world system and 
> isnot precluded by any hidden physical laws." *
>
> *"Our processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of the 
> quantum circuit 1 million times, a state-of-the-art supercomputer would 
> require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task."*
>
> *"Quantum processors based on superconducting qubits can now perform 
> computations in a Hilbert space of dimension 2^53 ≈ 9 × 10^15, beyond the 
> reach of the fastest classical supercomputers available today. To our 
> knowledge, this experiment marks the first computation that can only be 
> performed on a quantum processor."*
>
> *"Quantum processors have thus reached the regime of quantum supremacy. We 
> expect their computational power will continue to grow at a double 
> exponential rate"*
>
> For me the most stunning thing about the entire article is the 3 words 
> "double 
> exponential rate"
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39c408ba-ac1f-4eae-9ee6-b7a79fe61376%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Lisp

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:35:53PM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> For Lisp(s)/Scheme/Racket fans:
> 
> 
> Lisp, The Quantum Programmer’s Choice – Computerphile 
> 
> 
> 
> Simulation of Quantum Computations in Lisp 
> 
> 
> 
> Using Data Parallelism in Lisp for Implementing a Quantum Simulator 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other quantum/Lisp refs?

PicoLisp:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp

As the name suggests, they really are after quantum effects. It is
just Lisp part which does not fit such sizes very well (i.e., too big).

HTH

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.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/20190929145600.GA12070%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Inflation

[Alan Grayson]

Bruce considers that inflation remains somewhat speculative; that it's a 
solution looking for a problem to solve. So my questions are as follows: 
1), does inflation solve the homogeneity problem; namely, that the 
observable universe seems to have come to thermo equlibrium, manifested by 
homogeneity, even though it is causally UN-connected; and 2), does it 
explain the absence of magnetic monopoles? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a2a9c5a-6d5a-497e-bab4-8330d1fde9b1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2019, at 22:46, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> You agree with me that you have survived for another day if there is 
> something today that remembers being Bruno Marchal yesterday, and that's fine 
> but then you immediately contradict yourself by talking about THE first 
> person even if there is a machine that can produce many things that have that 
> property. And your pitiful attempt to cover up this enormous discrepancy by 
> introducing the idea of THE first person from THE first person are laughable. 
>  


Not, it is quasi tautological with the definition given of the first person. 
And even kids understand that both fist person will understand what was meant 
by the use of the term "“the” first person, in Helsinki. It is exactly like 
saying the state you will see if you look at the shcoreodnger cat, as everyone 
knows that nobody will ever see the superposition. 

If you would have found an argument to refute this, you would have given it 
since long, and I guess you would not need the insults.

Bruno

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/428A44E8-3D9F-40D1-A717-398B515317C4%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll's new book

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Sep 2019, at 23:24, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/27/2019 12:35 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> BTW Sabine Hossenfelder just posted her Many Worlds view:
>> 
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html 
>> 
> Sabine writes:
> 
> The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a 
> detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several 
> universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”, then 
> the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with 
> probability 1.”
> 
> This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement 
> outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are 
> not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. 
> Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together. 
> You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one 
> specific branch at a time.
> 
> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable as 
> the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent to 
> the measurement postulate.
> 
> This turns on "we only observe one measurement outcome" and  this "...is 
> logically equivalent to the measurement postulate"  But the MWI says that we 
> observe all possible outcomes just as the detector measures all possible 
> outcomes.  She seems to elide the observer splitting, and assumes there's a 
> "soul" or "person" that doesn't split but instead goes to only one branch of 
> the MW.

Right, and that is the usual confusion between 1p and 3p, or between []p and 
[]p & p. It is the W-guy saying to the journalist in Washington: “let us forget 
the M-guy” as we are not in Moscow.

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/2b3361d2-b424-234a-6fc9-45e124355efc%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/77848733-BD8B-4BAB-9CF3-8ECE33F61512%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll's new book

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Sep 2019, at 21:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/26/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:01:19 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:54:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> It seems that nearly everyone on the list has a strong opinion about Sean 
>> Carroll's new book, but has anyone other than me actually read it? 
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> I have not read his book, but I have read his papers and the one he 
>> coauthored with Sebbens. I know what he has done. I am definitely agnostic 
>> about MWI as I am with all interpretations. Carroll and Sebens has though 
>> opened the door to a relationship between the Born rule and MWI, and I 
>> suspect quantum interpretations in general. Now that is something I find 
>> potentially very interesting.
>> 
>> LC 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> See if Sean Carroll answers the question of "weighing" worlds:
>>  
>> How much is too Many Worlds, is it just right?
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/E3WLUdnW8jI/MLPg3dAhAgAJ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Suppose world W branches (in reality, not in "bookkeeping") to worlds W0 and 
>> W1.
>> 
>> If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s and 
>> 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK.
>> 
>> But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, 
>> and W1:
>> 
>> If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter 
>> content of W, how was the extra matter "produced"?
>> 
>> 
>> Two answers so far:
>> 
>> 1. If an infinity of indiscernible universes already exist at the start and 
>> are only differentiating/diverging (instead of splitting), then no matter is 
>> created, all of it was already there.
>> 
>> 2. Differentiation rather that duplication of matter is one possibility, but 
>> duplication of matter is not logically impossible either. Empirically, we 
>> have that matter cannot be created, but that is within a single world.
> 
> The "new"  matter (and energy and space and information) are discounted by 
> the probability of their existence. It seems curious to me that the MWI 
> advocates want to take the wave function ontologically but not the Hilbert 
> space.  From the viewpoint of Hilbert space all the different "worlds" are 
> just subspaces on which the wave-function of the multiverse can be projected. 
>  A world "splitting" is just the unfolding of a world into two orthogonal 
> subspaces.

Exactly.

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/1ae253d0-314c-c4e7-b4fe-38d0a1a61187%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/71831615-BAC4-47E1-A47C-1B4B3DD81885%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll's new book

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Sep 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Sep 2019, at 09:35, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Le ven. 27 sept. 2019 à 08:41, Philip Thrift > a écrit 
>> :
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:01:19 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:54:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> It seems that nearly everyone on the list has a strong opinion about Sean 
>> Carroll's new book, but has anyone other than me actually read it? 
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> I have not read his book, but I have read his papers and the one he 
>> coauthored with Sebbens. I know what he has done. I am definitely agnostic 
>> about MWI as I am with all interpretations. Carroll and Sebens has though 
>> opened the door to a relationship between the Born rule and MWI, and I 
>> suspect quantum interpretations in general. Now that is something I find 
>> potentially very interesting.
>> 
>> LC 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> See if Sean Carroll answers the question of "weighing" worlds:
>>  
>> How much is too Many Worlds, is it just right?
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/E3WLUdnW8jI/MLPg3dAhAgAJ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Suppose world W branches (in reality, not in "bookkeeping") to worlds W0 and 
>> W1.
>> 
>> If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s and 
>> 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK.
>> 
>> But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, 
>> and W1:
>> 
>> If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter 
>> content of W, how was the extra matter "produced"?
>> 
>> 
>> Two answers so far:
>> 
>> 1. If an infinity of indiscernible universes already exist at the start and 
>> are only differentiating/diverging (instead of splitting), then no matter is 
>> created, all of it was already there.
>> 
>> 2. Differentiation rather that duplication of matter is one possibility, but 
>> duplication of matter is not logically impossible either. Empirically, we 
>> have that matter cannot be created, but that is within a single world.
>> 
>> 
>> And you forgot 3- it's always the same matter in w0 and w1, just seen from 
>> another POV, like a circle in a 2d plane could be thought to be from a 
>> sphere or a cylinder intersecting a 2d plane, so if you see the many 2d 
>> planes intersecting the cylinder, they see each a part of it, no new circle 
>> are created on each plane.
>> 
>> Quentin
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry I missed it. This is the first I've read that answer.
>> 
>> Keep them coming!
>> 
>> BTW Sabine Hossenfelder just posted her Many Worlds view:
>> 
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html 
>> 
>> 
>> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> See my answer to spudboy. There is no matter, and 0 physical universe, just 
> the computations emulated by the +/* structure of arithmetic; that is, all 
> computations. That include the quantum one, but that does not explain the 
> quantum one. To explain them, we have to prove that only them win the first 
> indeterminacy problem in arithmetic (or there will be an appel to something 
> non Turing emulable or first person recoverable.
> 
> But even with quantum mechanics, that problem can be solved, as the laws are 
> statistical, and the universe never interact. Linearity precludes us to steal 
> the oil in a parallel universe. Amazingly, if QM was not 100% linear (if the 
> wave equation was only the first term of some series) we would be able to 
> interact in between universe, but thermodynamic would get wrong, relativity 
> would become wrong, well, nobody try this anymore.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If There is no matter, and [whatever follows] -- if that is true -- then I am 
> happy with anything the Many Worlders say is real, or anyone else's 
> "interpretation" of reality. It doesn't matter :)  because then one is just 
> talking about fiction, i.e. criticizing texts (what people write).

That is valid only if you define real by material. But if matter is not real, 
then, as no one doubt about the material appearances, it might mean that 
something else might be real, like 2+2 = 4 has to be real to be able to define 
what is a digital machine, just to name an example.

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 
> 

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 12:31:15 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2019 5:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The claim of panprotopsychism*  is not that simple material (or in 
> > this case, arithmetical) entities think, but they manifest the 
> > (proto-thinking) ingredients that when combined into more complex 
> > entities think. 
>
> But then it adds nothing to the materialist theory that thinking is a 
> certain process that some sufficiently complex systems can do. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
Some AI scientists say that an AI can't really think until it is conscious. 
So the most advanced Watson (can answer any academic question in a  
Wikipedia-automatic way) or whatever can't be said to be a thinking 
machine. So if one thinks consciousness is a real thing, then what does 
"complex"  mean for a system to be conscious?

Obviously consciousness is material because the matter in our skulls 
(sometimes) has it, and matter is all there is.

But what is the "complex" (what does that word even mean?) nature of that 
matter?

@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/e85e5488-6693-4107-a343-02c617a1c8ed%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's new book

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 5:54:21 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/28/2019 3:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>> The "new"  matter (and energy and space and information) are discounted 
>> by the probability of their existence. It seems curious to me that the MWI 
>> advocates want to take the wave function ontologically but not the Hilbert 
>> space.  From the viewpoint of Hilbert space all the different "worlds" are 
>> just subspaces on which the wave-function of the multiverse can be 
>> projected.  A world "splitting" is just the unfolding of a world into two 
>> orthogonal subspaces.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Are there any distinguishing features to these orthogonal subspaces? If 
> we traveled to one of them, would we detect anything different or unusual 
> from the space in which we previously resided? AG *
>
>
> You would notice that the quantum measurement you did had just resulted in 
> UP (or DOWN).
>
> Brent
>




When a *bundle of histories* combine (interfere, reinforce), only one 
survives.

All the other histories die, and go to the *quantum netherworld.*

@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/df5e0ff8-0eae-4b73-9aa3-ba4a35e7d3ca%40googlegroups.com.