date:20191026



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:55:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
>> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>>
>> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
>> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
>> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
>> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when 
> he said no one understands QM? AG
>
>
> You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over and 
> above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the right 
> answer.  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or Schlosshauer 
> don't understand?  
>
> Brent
>

Here's what I understand about an electron in the double slit experiment. 
It doesn't occupy two locations simultaneously as a particle. Rather, when 
*not* observed it behaves like a wave, goes through both slits, and 
interferes with itself. When observed, it behaves as a particle. Now please 
explain the form of the wf in S cat experiment, applying decoherence before 
and after it completes, while the box is closed. 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/935db25b-71fa-489a-af54-2ce3df7b0d8a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/26/2019 10:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths
simultaneously, but
> we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG

Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to
describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that
would
convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to
adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around.

Brent

That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong 
when he said no one understands QM? AG

You still haven't said what you mean by "understand".  What is it over 
and above being able to correctly apply the mathematics and get the 
right answer.  What is it you think Zurek or Carroll or Lawrence or 
Schlosshauer don't understand?

Brent
I have given you a proof.  I'm not obliged to give you an understanding.
  --- Oliver Heaviside

--
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/7a49b3bd-9c51-914e-6947-7348258ae5fe%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
> > we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 
>
> Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
> describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
> convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
> adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. 
>
> Brent 
>

That's the "shut up and calculate" philosophy. So was Feynman wrong when he 
said no one understands QM? 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/010edbd9-9888-4f01-96a3-90f26b67340d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 11:31:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
>> understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
> of your misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
 conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
>>> "what does *interference* mean".
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and 
>> instead 
>> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>> understand "interference". AG 
>>
>
>
>
> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
> and then generalize it.*
>
> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
 Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
 Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 

>>>
>>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
>>> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
>>> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
>>> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
>>> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
>>> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
>>> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
>>> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
>>> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
>>> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>>>
>>
>> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different 
>> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One 
>> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one 
>> path is considered. AG
>>
>
> My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply the 
> existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. One 
> needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the 
> probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the 
> probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle 
> can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to 
> understand how that can be. AG  
>

Now for the hard questions; in the case of S's cat, the wf = |alive>|source 
undecayed> + |dead>|source decayed>. if each wf component is considered as 
a wave, what are the probability amplitudes of each possible outcome before 
the box is opened? And what is the wf after decoherence has occurred but 
before the box is opened? 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/360cd599-37a0-4c1c-a860-f6fbdfd0398e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but 
we don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG 


Who says we don't have that concept?  We have the mathematics to 
describe and predict it.  What more do you want...something that would 
convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother?  Nature doesn't need to 
adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around.


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/f19554a3-1876-b540-23c3-2fde062eb2c3%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:33:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
> understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



 But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
 least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
 of your misunderstanding.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
>> "what does *interference* mean".
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
> and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and 
> instead 
> rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
> understand "interference". AG 
>



 *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
 and then generalize it.*

 OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
>>> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
>>> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
>> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
>> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
>> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
>> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
>> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
>> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
>> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
>> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
>> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>>
>
> Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different 
> paths, having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One 
> can imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one 
> path is considered. AG
>

My point above is to show that interference can't be defined by simply the 
existence of probabilities of outcomes, which is what Phil was doing. One 
needs interacting waves, and in the case of QM the calculation of the 
probability is different than classically, which is just the sum of the 
probability of each path, properly normalized. QM does suggest a particle 
can be in several paths simultaneously, but we don't have a concept to 
understand how that can be. 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/deb46246-4e2a-4899-854a-c5808572c9a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/26/2019 7:15 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


If one wants to quantize GR, one would have to quantize the underlying 
classical field of space-time. But what would pop out of the quantized 
field when a measurement occurs? I couldn't be a photon as in QED. 
What would be the quantized measurement? A graviton?


It should be an eigenvector of whatever operator you applied to the wave 
function of the metric field.  That's why Lawrence was worried about 
what a Ricci tensor operator would return.


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/2ca117f9-f64d-654f-693a-1dc2c24b48ed%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/26/2019 7:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either 
of two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through 
slit1. Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a 
screen with probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but 
through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or 
paths for the same Event, we must imagine the waves "interfering" even 
though they are not simultaneous, and the probability of that event 
with two possible paths, is the absolute value squared of the sum of 
phi1 and phi2.  AG 


In a Young's slit experiment the particles interfere with themselves.  
The interference pattern appears even if the electrons are sent one per 
hour.  That's what makes it strange, since it violates the classical 
"logic" that a thing cannot be two different places at the same time.


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/18d5626b-c6db-0e43-686a-a5edf6957fc9%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/26/2019 6:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as 
Scroedinger's Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of 
"interference". AG


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

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/e41ef562-d319-a454-629d-2dad15328010%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 8:09:57 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
 You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
 understand 
 "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at 
>>> least start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root 
>>> of your misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>
>
>
> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: 
> "what does *interference* mean".
>
> @philipthrift
>

 You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
 and then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead 
 rely on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
 understand "interference". AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, 
>>> and then generalize it.*
>>>
>>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
>> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
>> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>>
>
> Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an 
> electron impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a 
> particular location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of 
> two slits. Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. 
> Now imagine another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with 
> probability amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If 
> phi1 and phi2 represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, 
> we must imagine the waves "interfering" even though they are not 
> simultaneous, and the probability of that event with two possible paths, is 
> the absolute value squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  AG 
>

Or maybe it's easier to think of two simultaneous waves on different paths, 
having the same outcome, with the probability as stated above. One can 
imagine "interference" changing the probability outcome if only one path is 
considered. 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/f7ef459c-5570-487c-8416-e039154cb234%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:55:37 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:24:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:17:15 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 What creates the problem at microscopic level is that the stress-energy 
 tensor on the right hand side will be due to the wave function of a 
 quantum 
 particle and so would only have a probabilistic interpretation.  We an do 
 semi-classical computations by replacing the wave function by it's 
 expected 
 value at each point.  But that avoids the point that the metric stuff on 
 the left hand side needs to be represented by a probabilistic function to 
 match the right hand side.

 Brent



>>> That's an interesting way to express it.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> In effect, what Brent is getting at, is that GR is a classical theory, 
>> which assumes a classical space-time field. But if you assume a classical 
>> field at the microscopic level, will GR give answers which are contradicted 
>> by measurements? AG
>>
>
> Brent has a part of the problem laid out. The semiclassical approach to 
> physics is that T_{ab} - ½Rg_{ab} = 8πG, and the curvature stuff on 
> the left is nonlinear. Quantum mechanics is not good with nonlinear 
> operators. If we try to make the Ricci curvature an operator, the 
> nonlinearity of the operator causes troubles. The only way to fix this is 
> to impose Wightman conditions that quantum oscillators for the field are 
> localized to a point and independent on spatial manifolds. General 
> relativity has problems with this because curvature is evaluated by a loop 
> in spacetime and is the field through that area. Gravity is then more 
> nonlocal. There is another problem that spacetime has with quantum physics. 
> Putative operators for gravitation are evaluated on a metric signature 
> (+,-,-,-), which results in negative probabilities. 
>
> Are there ways around this? I think so. For one thing quantization only 
> makes sense on event horizons, where the area curvature is evaluated on is 
> dual to a point. So we can with holography I think quantize gravitation on 
> horizons and then compute amplitudes in the bulk. The negative probability 
> problem can be worked around with coherent states, such as those with laser 
> physics. The gravitational quantum states are then a condensate or massive 
> entanglement of states. The maximally mixed states that are an apparent 
> problem then have probability p = 1/N, for N modes, and we can evaluate a 
> relative entropy S(ρ*|ρ) = N + S(ρ) for  ρ* and ρ the density operators for 
> maximally mixed states and the coherent states on the horizon.
>
> In this way the states on the horizon are near Planck energy oscillators, 
> and the mixed states the Hawking radiation. This relative entropy is then a 
> dualism between the UV fields on the horizon and the IR fields beyond, or 
> in the bulk. This is then
>
> UV-fields of quantum gravity = IR-fields of gauge interactions and fermions
>
> If you think about it this is a way of writing the Einstein field equation.
>
> LC
>

If one wants to quantize GR, one would have to quantize the underlying 
classical field of space-time. But what would pop out of the quantized 
field when a measurement occurs? I couldn't be a photon as in QED. What 
would be the quantized measurement? A graviton? 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/da18dea7-1eb9-4c9e-b9f2-df213bcb43cf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:09:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? 
>>> You can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to 
>>> understand 
>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>


 I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
 does *interference* mean".

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>>> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
>>> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>>> understand "interference". AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>> then generalize it.*
>>
>> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
> Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Schroedinger's 
> Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". AG 
>

Maybe this will work as a definition of "interference". Imagine an electron 
impinges on a screen in a double slit experiment, and at a particular 
location on the screen, called "the Event", through either of two slits. 
Suppose it has a probability amplitude of phi1 through slit1. Now imagine 
another electron, at a later time, impinging on a screen with probability 
amplitude of phi2 for the same event, but through slit2. If phi1 and phi2 
represent different amplitudes or paths for the same Event, we must imagine 
the waves "interfering" even though they are not simultaneous, and the 
probability of that event with two possible paths, is the absolute value 
squared of the sum of phi1 and phi2.  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/9ac6ed55-3bcb-494c-8655-9a6fdf916425%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 5:57:57 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
>> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
> misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
 conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
>>> does *interference* mean".
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
>> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
>> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
>> understand "interference". AG 
>>
>
>
>
> *You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
> then generalize it.*
>
> OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I don't have one. That's why I asked. One can show that Heisenberg's 
Picture, which doesn't use waves, gives the same results as Scroedinger's 
Picture, which uses waves, but that's no explanation of "interference". 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/73df3be1-27e6-4262-98ee-52acd9992d4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Ah, very good. 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Oct 26, 2019 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

There is more research from China of late. They are making a mark in the field 
of quantum communications.
LC

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 1:22:35 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
China does world-class development work, but uses spies to steal original ideas 
from outside of China, the R as in research. Any business that sells in China, 
turns over its intellectual property to Chinese companies which turn over the 
data to the Communist Party. China has armed up with weapons so as to ensure 
(hypersonics) eliminate US submarines so there no retaliatory strikes, after a 
first strike, on the US. Thus, the Communist Party wants the US physically 
eliminated, even though we are their biggest customer. I guess some things are 
more important than money, if you hate someone enough. I believe Orange Man 
will fail with Xi, just as Obama in 2012 failed with Putin. On the physics, of 
which one believes in a strong observer, or a weak, unconscious one, it almost 
becomes pedantic, unless one gains a beneficial insight, or can in some 
fashion, 'go there.' On planet earth concerning intellectual or physical 
ascendancy...
https://www.realcleardefense. com/articles/2019/09/18/ 
russias_hypersonic_nukes_ exploit_us_vulnerability_ 114750.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/ 06/19/magazine/hypersonic- missiles.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ china-and-russia-have-set-a- 
nuclear-collision-course-with- the-united-states

Ok, Back to the Philosophy of Science.

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Oct 26, 2019 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:36:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the 
Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?

Bruno

If this is where the western intellectual trajectory is taking us then it is 
small wonder that China is becoming the dominant actor in science, technology 
and ultimately the rest of the world.
LC -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everyth...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ 
msgid/everything-list/ 19d1b092-ccb6-4995-a467- b3e77c5d2cf5%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/4fc8aef4-0e64-48ce-8ada-8940ab11b26a%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/260760930.1652396.1572137299125%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: There is no mind-body problem

2019-10-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 05:25:39PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/26/2019 5:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:50:10PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
> > List wrote:
> > > I'm glad you recognize there's a difference between "potential" and 
> > > "real";
> > > a distinction this list is founded to obfuscate.
> > > 
> > > Brent
> > I don't know about that. The everything is "all finite things" is a
> > perfectly rational starting point for an ensemble theory.
> > 
> > Even though Max's original "all mathematical objects" theory is
> > ambivalent on the point, I've always interpreted that as "all finite
> > axiomatic systems", even in my first paper on the subject: "Why Occams
> > Razor".
> 
> Peano arithmetic is not a finite axiomatic system.  It has infinitely many
> axioms of the form (s...(s(s(s)))...).
> So I'm not sure what your refer to.   I doubt that "all finite things" is
> well defined.  Is the set of all finite things finite?
> 

It was a way of characterising a type of theory, such as "all finite
axiomatic systems", or "all turing machines".

Peano arithmetic is a finite axiomatic system. However, the integers
is not - as shown by Goedel's incompleteness theorem.


Cheers

-- 


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/20191027003338.GI12720%40zen.

Re: There is no mind-body problem

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/26/2019 5:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:50:10PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:

I'm glad you recognize there's a difference between "potential" and "real";
a distinction this list is founded to obfuscate.

Brent

I don't know about that. The everything is "all finite things" is a
perfectly rational starting point for an ensemble theory.

Even though Max's original "all mathematical objects" theory is
ambivalent on the point, I've always interpreted that as "all finite
axiomatic systems", even in my first paper on the subject: "Why Occams
Razor".


Peano arithmetic is not a finite axiomatic system.  It has infinitely 
many axioms of the form (s...(s(s(s)))...).
So I'm not sure what your refer to.   I doubt that "all finite things" 
is well defined.  Is the set of all finite things finite?


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/e5d91183-8b6f-f92e-b22f-700f7c4c095f%40verizon.net.

Re: There is no mind-body problem

2019-10-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:50:10PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> I'm glad you recognize there's a difference between "potential" and "real";
> a distinction this list is founded to obfuscate.
> 
> Brent

I don't know about that. The everything is "all finite things" is a
perfectly rational starting point for an ensemble theory.

Even though Max's original "all mathematical objects" theory is
ambivalent on the point, I've always interpreted that as "all finite
axiomatic systems", even in my first paper on the subject: "Why Occams
Razor".

Cheers
-- 


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/20191027000238.GG12720%40zen.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:19:06 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



 But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
 start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
 misunderstanding.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
>> does *interference* mean".
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
> then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
> on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
> understand "interference". AG 
>



*You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
then generalize it.*

OK. When you find an explanation in these terms, let us know.

@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/7628e75c-41fa-4a72-8958-0545cac8a516%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations

2019-10-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:24:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:17:15 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> What creates the problem at microscopic level is that the stress-energy 
>>> tensor on the right hand side will be due to the wave function of a quantum 
>>> particle and so would only have a probabilistic interpretation.  We an do 
>>> semi-classical computations by replacing the wave function by it's expected 
>>> value at each point.  But that avoids the point that the metric stuff on 
>>> the left hand side needs to be represented by a probabilistic function to 
>>> match the right hand side.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's an interesting way to express it.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> In effect, what Brent is getting at, is that GR is a classical theory, 
> which assumes a classical space-time field. But if you assume a classical 
> field at the microscopic level, will GR give answers which are contradicted 
> by measurements? AG
>

Brent has a part of the problem laid out. The semiclassical approach to 
physics is that T_{ab} - ½Rg_{ab} = 8πG, and the curvature stuff on 
the left is nonlinear. Quantum mechanics is not good with nonlinear 
operators. If we try to make the Ricci curvature an operator, the 
nonlinearity of the operator causes troubles. The only way to fix this is 
to impose Wightman conditions that quantum oscillators for the field are 
localized to a point and independent on spatial manifolds. General 
relativity has problems with this because curvature is evaluated by a loop 
in spacetime and is the field through that area. Gravity is then more 
nonlocal. There is another problem that spacetime has with quantum physics. 
Putative operators for gravitation are evaluated on a metric signature 
(+,-,-,-), which results in negative probabilities. 

Are there ways around this? I think so. For one thing quantization only 
makes sense on event horizons, where the area curvature is evaluated on is 
dual to a point. So we can with holography I think quantize gravitation on 
horizons and then compute amplitudes in the bulk. The negative probability 
problem can be worked around with coherent states, such as those with laser 
physics. The gravitational quantum states are then a condensate or massive 
entanglement of states. The maximally mixed states that are an apparent 
problem then have probability p = 1/N, for N modes, and we can evaluate a 
relative entropy S(ρ*|ρ) = N + S(ρ) for  ρ* and ρ the density operators for 
maximally mixed states and the coherent states on the horizon.

In this way the states on the horizon are near Planck energy oscillators, 
and the mixed states the Hawking radiation. This relative entropy is then a 
dualism between the UV fields on the horizon and the IR fields beyond, or 
in the bulk. This is then

UV-fields of quantum gravity = IR-fields of gauge interactions and fermions

If you think about it this is a way of writing the Einstein field equation.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e67fe09b-73af-45b6-aced-647e3d9e0c6a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell

There is more research from China of late. They are making a mark in the 
field of quantum communications.

LC

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 1:22:35 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> China does world-class development work, but uses spies to steal original 
> ideas from outside of China, the R as in research. Any business that sells 
> in China, turns over its intellectual property to Chinese companies which 
> turn over the data to the Communist Party. China has armed up with weapons 
> so as to ensure (hypersonics) eliminate US submarines so there no 
> retaliatory strikes, after a first strike, on the US. Thus, the Communist 
> Party wants the US physically eliminated, even though we are their biggest 
> customer. I guess some things are more important than money, if you hate 
> someone enough. I believe Orange Man will fail with Xi, just as Obama in 
> 2012 failed with Putin. On the physics, of which one believes in a strong 
> observer, or a weak, unconscious one, it almost becomes pedantic, unless 
> one gains a beneficial insight, or can in some fashion, 'go there.' On 
> planet earth concerning intellectual or physical ascendancy... 
>
>
> https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/09/18/russias_hypersonic_nukes_exploit_us_vulnerability_114750.html
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/magazine/hypersonic-missiles.html
>
>
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/china-and-russia-have-set-a-nuclear-collision-course-with-the-united-states
>
> Ok, Back to the Philosophy of Science.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Sat, Oct 26, 2019 1:51 pm
> Subject: Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:36:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the 
> Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans? 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
> If this is where the western intellectual trajectory is taking us then it 
> is small wonder that China is becoming the dominant actor in science, 
> technology and ultimately the rest of the world.
>
> LC 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19d1b092-ccb6-4995-a467-b3e77c5d2cf5%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/4fc8aef4-0e64-48ce-8ada-8940ab11b26a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:17:15 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> What creates the problem at microscopic level is that the stress-energy 
>> tensor on the right hand side will be due to the wave function of a quantum 
>> particle and so would only have a probabilistic interpretation.  We an do 
>> semi-classical computations by replacing the wave function by it's expected 
>> value at each point.  But that avoids the point that the metric stuff on 
>> the left hand side needs to be represented by a probabilistic function to 
>> match the right hand side.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
> That's an interesting way to express it.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

In effect, what Brent is getting at, is that GR is a classical theory, 
which assumes a classical space-time field. But if you assume a classical 
field at the microscopic level, will GR give answers which are contradicted 
by measurements? 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/0125b7f7-4817-485d-855c-b52801a2e4f0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
 can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
 "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
>> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>>
>
>
> I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
> does *interference* mean".
>
> @philipthrift
>

You could start with S's equation and use waves in your explanation, and 
then generalize it. But the fact that you refuse to do so, and instead rely 
on other interpretations, such as Heisenberg's, suggests you don't 
understand "interference". 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/4bb5d61a-041e-46ef-bbb3-390d96958fce%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> What creates the problem at microscopic level is that the stress-energy 
> tensor on the right hand side will be due to the wave function of a quantum 
> particle and so would only have a probabilistic interpretation.  We an do 
> semi-classical computations by replacing the wave function by it's expected 
> value at each point.  But that avoids the point that the metric stuff on 
> the left hand side needs to be represented by a probabilistic function to 
> match the right hand side.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
That's an interesting way to express it.

@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/70d80580-dbb7-44c6-a287-52753b3f4b80%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 4:09:08 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You 
>>> can get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
>> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I 
> conclude you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. AG 
>


I conclude you will never understand any answer to your question: "what 
does *interference* mean".

@philipthrift

@philipthtift 

-- 
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/8391294d-2bb8-4ba2-8b74-ea3bb6fa4373%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:03:20 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You can 
>> get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
>> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least 
> start with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
> misunderstanding.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

No, it's just a convenient, intuitive starting pont. That's all. I conclude 
you can't do it. Thanks for the effort. 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/6d88f805-6dd5-4f95-9761-fdc913ed2383%40googlegroups.com.

Galileo!


"[Physical science] was designed to give mathematical models that can 
accurately predict the behavior of matter, and that's gone really well, but 
it was never designed to deal with the subjective qualities of 
consciousness." (@Philip_Goff)
https://edge.org/conversation/philip_goff-a-post-galilean-paradigm

@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/77b32b46-4bb5-4bae-a62f-07344de30a6c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:44:59 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 2:33:05 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Where do the several postulates of GR imply that the field equations 
>>> fail to apply at some small dimensions of space and time? It's commonly 
>>> claimed that GR does not apply at the microscopic level, but I see nothing 
>>> in the several postulates of GR that imply this result. AG
>>>
>>
>> They don't imply that. The EFE is the wrong mathematics to match 
>> phenomena at the quantum scale. 
>>
>> So in that sense EFE is wrong (as a "universal" theory).
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> You haven't answered my question -- which is WHY the EFE don't apply at 
> the quantum scale. AG 
>


Because Nature is a bitch?

@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/da439318-9530-422d-b0ab-448eee58967e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:42:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not make your point with waves so at least it's intelligible? You can 
> get the same results in the Heisenberg Picture, but to understand 
> "interference" you need to at least start with waves. AG 
>



But that premise (*to understand "interference" you need to at least start 
with waves*) is simply wrong, and perhaps is the root of your 
misunderstanding.

@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/8051c273-6137-435e-b8ea-0d3c0b12b9a4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

What creates the problem at microscopic level is that the stress-energy 
tensor on the right hand side will be due to the wave function of a 
quantum particle and so would only have a probabilistic interpretation.  
We an do semi-classical computations by replacing the wave function by 
it's expected value at each point.  But that avoids the point that the 
metric stuff on the left hand side needs to be represented by a 
probabilistic function to match the right hand side.


Brent

On 10/26/2019 1:19 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Where do the several postulates of GR imply that the field equations 
fail to apply at some small dimensions of space and time? It's 
commonly claimed that GR does not apply at the microscopic level, but 
I see nothing in the several postulates of GR that imply this result. 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/3bd1beb2-da6b-4608-be01-92c50ebd3944%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/93daa11d-4d5d-cb1d-154b-6a9e97e4e73e%40verizon.net.

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 2:33:05 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Where do the several postulates of GR imply that the field equations fail 
>> to apply at some small dimensions of space and time? It's commonly claimed 
>> that GR does not apply at the microscopic level, but I see nothing in the 
>> several postulates of GR that imply this result. AG
>>
>
> They don't imply that. The EFE is the wrong mathematics to match phenomena 
> at the quantum scale. 
>
> So in that sense EFE is wrong (as a "universal" theory).
>
> @philipthrift 
>

You haven't answered my question -- which is WHY the EFE don't apply at the 
quantum scale. 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/b18f8e2a-8bda-46c5-94b1-273a3a3e8220%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 2:26:48 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box 
>>> is closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during 
>>> that time 
>>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>>> don't 
>>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
>>> initial 
>>> condition where the probability of one component of the 
>>> superposition, that 
>>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>>> think? AG
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
>> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is 
>> the cat 
>> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>>
>>
>> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
>> point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is 
>> closed you 
>> don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
>> superposition of 
>> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
>> so it 
>> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
> decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
> alive 
> and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>
>
> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
> you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  
> Once 
> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can 
> ignore the 
> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>
> Brent
>

 Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
 classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that 
 point in 
 time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 


 In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
 (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether 
 the cat 
 has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
 still 
 a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just 
 what you 
 know about the system.

>>>
>>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does 
>>> *interference* mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
>> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>>
>
>
> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
> meanings.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
>>> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>>>
>>> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>>> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>>>
>>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item 
>>> builds the concept of superposition, and t

Re: Einstein's field equations



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Where do the several postulates of GR imply that the field equations fail 
> to apply at some small dimensions of space and time? It's commonly claimed 
> that GR does not apply at the microscopic level, but I see nothing in the 
> several postulates of GR that imply this result. AG
>

They don't imply that. The EFE is the wrong mathematics to match phenomena 
at the quantum scale. 

So in that sense EFE is wrong (as a "universal" theory).

@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/517ddbc9-4c72-4912-b5bf-2a77278c9d84%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:15:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

 On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
>> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
>> time 
>> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
>> don't 
>> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
>> initial 
>> condition where the probability of one component of the 
>> superposition, that 
>> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
>> think? AG
>>
>
> Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
> radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
> cat 
> in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG
>
>
> You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
> point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is 
> closed you 
> don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
> superposition of 
> decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
> so it 
> is also in a superposition of dead and alive.
>
> Brent
>

 I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
 decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
 alive 
 and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 


 It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
 you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
 envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
 question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  
 Once 
 envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
 the 
 other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
>>> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
>>> in 
>>> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
>>> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
>>> cat 
>>> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
>>> still 
>>> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
>>> you 
>>> know about the system.
>>>
>>
>> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
>> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does 
>> *interference* mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
> superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 
>


 All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
 interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
 meanings.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
>> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>>
>> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
>> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
>> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
>> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>>
>> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
>> the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
>> interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
>> probability for an event is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made 
>> from complex numbers, a

Einstein's field equations

Where do the several postulates of GR imply that the field equations fail 
to apply at some small dimensions of space and time? It's commonly claimed 
that GR does not apply at the microscopic level, but I see nothing in the 
several postulates of GR that imply this result. 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/3bd1beb2-da6b-4608-be01-92c50ebd3944%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:53:00 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 5:07:34 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 9:27:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:21:26 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:20 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2019 10:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 6:35:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2019 4:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 at 11:35:13 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:


 On 10/19/2019 6:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Sean says the decoherence time is 10^(-20) sec. So when the box is 
> closed, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead during that 
> time 
> interval, assuming the decay hasn't happened. If that's the case, I 
> don't 
> see how decoherence solves the paradox, unless we can assume an 
> initial 
> condition where the probability of one component of the 
> superposition, that 
> the cat is dead, is zero. Maybe this is the solution. What do you 
> think? AG
>

 Maybe this is an easier question; after decoherence, assuming the 
 radioactive source hasn't decayed, what is the wf of the cat?  Is the 
 cat 
 in a mixed state, alive or dead with some probabIlity for each? AG


 You can't "assume the radioactive source hasn't decayed".  The 
 point Schroedinger's thought experiment is that when the box is closed 
 you 
 don't know whether or not it has decayed and so it is in a 
 superposition of 
 decayed and not-decayed and the cat is correlated with these states, 
 so it 
 is also in a superposition of dead and alive.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I thought you might say this. OK, then what function does 
>>> decoherence have in possibly solving the apparent paradox of a cat 
>>> alive 
>>> and dead simultaneously. TIA, AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't necessarily solve "that problem".  Rather it shows why 
>>> you can never detect such a state, assuming you buy Zurek's idea of 
>>> envariance.  One way to look at it is it's the answer to Heisenberg's 
>>> question: Where is the cut between the quantum and the classical?  Once 
>>> envriance has acted, then the result is classical, i.e. you can ignore 
>>> the 
>>> other possibilities and renormalize the wave function.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Woudn't you agree that if the system, in the case a cat, goes 
>> classical after 10^(-20) sec, its state must be a mixture at that point 
>> in 
>> time even if the box hasn't been opened?  AG 
>>
>>
>> In MWI it's only a mixture FAPP.  But if you haven't opened the box 
>> (and Schroedinger was assuming an ideal box) you don't know whether the 
>> cat 
>> has "gone classical" or not.  So your representation of its state is 
>> still 
>> a superposition.  That's the QBist interpretation.  The wf is just what 
>> you 
>> know about the system.
>>
>
> Please remind me; if the wf is a *superposition* before the box is 
> opened, what exactly does this mean? That is, what does *interference* 
> mean in this circumstance? TIA, AG
>

 Please indulge me on this. At this point I have no clue what 
 superposition and/or interference means in this context. TIA, AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> All these are couched in the vocabulary of the formulation and 
>>> interpretation of the theory one begins with, and so they have ambiguous 
>>> meanings.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Can you answer the question assuming the CI? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> Just translate this into "CI", in whatever terms you like. It gives the 
> same answers, so what difference does it make?
>
> *The probability P for an event to occur is given by the square of the 
> complex magnitude of a quantum amplitude for the event, Q. The quantum 
> amplitude Q associated with an event is the sum of the amplitudes  
> associated with every history leading to the event.*
>
> [This] specifies how probabilities are to be computed. *This item builds 
> the concept of superposition, and thus the possibility of quantum 
> interference, directly into the formulation.* Specifying that the 
> probability for an event is given as the magnitude-squared of a sum made 
> from complex numbers, allows for negative, positive and intermediate 
> interference effects. This part of the formulation thus builds the 
> description of experiments such as the two-slit experiment directly into 
> the formulation.

Re: There is no mind-body problem

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/26/2019 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 10/25/2019 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The genuine problem is that if consciousness is produce by a digital mechanism,
then there is an infinity of mechanism which produces it, and the theory of
matter has to become a statistics on personal (or first person plural personal)
histories (computations involving Löbian machines).

In materialism there are no infinities. They are just Platonic pipe dreams.

In mechanism there is no infinities.

Then stop referring to "an infinity of mechanism which produces it".

The infinities are phenomenological.

There are no infinities in phenomenon either.

Analysis is as much part of the machine phenomenology than physics. No real
numbers!

It is the materialist which needs infinities and a lot of magic to associate my
consciousness to one machine in arithmetic, and not to the potential infinitely

I'm glad you recognize there's a difference between "potential" and
"real"; a distinction this list is founded to obfuscate.

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/34d21ea2-ebbd-4ccf-4328-ee86edfa6161%40verizon.net.

Re: There is no mind-body problem

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/26/2019 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/25/2019 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 24 Oct 2019, at 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/24/2019 6:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Leibniz put it well in 1686, in his famous image of the mill:
consciousness, he said, "cannot be explained on mechanical
principles, ie by shapes and movements…. imagine that there is a
machine [eg a brain] whose structure makes it think, sense and
have perception. Then we can conceive it enlarged, so that we can
go inside it, as into a mill. Suppose that we do: then if we
inspect the interior we shall find there nothing but parts which
push one another, and never anything which could explain a
conscious experience."

Conclusion: consciousness can't be physical,

That’s a valid reasoning.

No it's not. Leibniz could find "producing flour" either, just
parts that push and pull.

I don’t understand. I think you miss here the 1p and 3p crucial
distinction.

Oops. I see I wrote "could" where I intended "couldn't".

But that's not your objection is it. The 1p would be the experience
of the mill in producing flour,

The production of flour by the mill is describable in pure 3p terms. I
see not introspective machine there a priori.

which one wouldn't find by inspecting the machine.

Indeed. But that would be different if the mill contains some chips,
and would be capable to describe itself, asserting things like
“Yesterday there was no wind, and I was unable to make as much flour
that I expected, I am sorry”.

But that's because a mill doesn't have experience in the relevant
sense. It may well have "mill experience", i.e. it's parts wear and
that constitutes a kind of memory and it responds to environments as
more or less power is available from it's water wheel. But it can't
have experience in the human (or even dog sense) because it is not
sufficiently complex nor programmed to interact with it's environment
based on internal modeling which includes modeling itself. If it had
those things, then with sufficient study Leibniz could find them and
know about the 1p experience of the mill.

Not know. But he can bet,

Scientists only ever know things in that sense; it goes without saying.
It is only metaphysicians who pretend to "know" things in some absolute
sense.

Brent

but then he bets on Mechanism, and eventually he will understand that
physics has to be founded on machine’s
psychology/theology/computer-science/arithmetic. He was going in that
direction, and was not so far of the discovery of the universal machine.

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/d8b96c72-3ef9-b870-38d9-aad0d381d348%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/9120ECFD-2AC0-432A-B767-E8102E7B5F87%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
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/1dcda6f2-ede6-cc47-ea73-505a330917c6%40verizon.net.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/26/2019 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical MATTER,
which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local
consciousness.

Which explains NUMBER.

Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.

Number and the conception of number are the same thing.

With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as primitive.

The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the
universal Turing machine/numbers.

The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic.

The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or
computer science.

That's why it's an abstract concept. There could be no number 2 without the
concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this
conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.

Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense.

Category error. You equivocate on "physics". Physics, the theories of
matter and energy, would indeed not make sense. But "physics" the
subject of the theories would still exist. "To make sense" is a
relational property of the two.

Brent

How could the Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without
humans?

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/f5ed747a-7acd-5994-30d6-e4bfdbab538c%40verizon.net.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/26/2019 1:05 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, October 25, 2019 at 7:49:14 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Panpsychism would say there is some sort of quantum number
involved with psychic existence.

LC




We could make one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_neural_network
http://axon.cs.byu.edu/papers/ezhov.fdisis00.pdf

/One thing we do know about matter is that when you put some very 
common elements together in the way in which they're put together in 
brains, you get consciousness./

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/soul-dust-nicholas-humphrey-review


Unless there's sudden blow to the brain case...which doesn't change the 
molecules at all.


Brent



@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/eeac6b9b-3a7d-478f-880b-4e45a088217d%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/d651fb23-9075-8d43-4876-9a3faa9930a0%40verizon.net.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

China does world-class development work, but uses spies to steal original ideas 
from outside of China, the R as in research. Any business that sells in China, 
turns over its intellectual property to Chinese companies which turn over the 
data to the Communist Party. China has armed up with weapons so as to ensure 
(hypersonics) eliminate US submarines so there no retaliatory strikes, after a 
first strike, on the US. Thus, the Communist Party wants the US physically 
eliminated, even though we are their biggest customer. I guess some things are 
more important than money, if you hate someone enough. I believe Orange Man 
will fail with Xi, just as Obama in 2012 failed with Putin. On the physics, of 
which one believes in a strong observer, or a weak, unconscious one, it almost 
becomes pedantic, unless one gains a beneficial insight, or can in some 
fashion, 'go there.' On planet earth concerning intellectual or physical 
ascendancy...
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/09/18/russias_hypersonic_nukes_exploit_us_vulnerability_114750.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/magazine/hypersonic-missiles.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/china-and-russia-have-set-a-nuclear-collision-course-with-the-united-states

Ok, Back to the Philosophy of Science.



-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Oct 26, 2019 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:36:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the 
Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?

Bruno


If this is where the western intellectual trajectory is taking us then it is 
small wonder that China is becoming the dominant actor in science, technology 
and ultimately the rest of the world.
LC -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19d1b092-ccb6-4995-a467-b3e77c5d2cf5%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/651986223.1533088.1572114148163%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 3:36:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the 
> Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans? 
>
> Bruno 
>

If this is where the western intellectual trajectory is taking us then it 
is small wonder that China is becoming the dominant actor in science, 
technology and ultimately the rest of the world.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19d1b092-ccb6-4995-a467-b3e77c5d2cf5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: There is no mind-body problem



> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/2019 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> The genuine problem is that if consciousness is produce by a digital 
>> mechanism, then there is an infinity of mechanism which produces it, and the 
>> theory of matter has to become a statistics on personal (or first person 
>> plural personal) histories (computations involving Löbian machines).
>> 
> 
> In materialism there are no infinities.  They are just Platonic pipe dreams.


In mechanism there is no infinities. The infinities are phenomenological. 
Analysis is as much part of the machine phenomenology than physics. No real 
numbers!

It is the materialist which needs infinities and a lot of magic to associate my 
consciousness to one machine in arithmetic, and not to the potential infinitely 
many which are run in the arithmetical reality (which is not an ontological 
thing!). 

With mechanism, what exist are 0, s’0), s(s(0)), ...etc. No infinite things 
there.

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/043474d4-7d4c-cb8b-c095-56beff846a76%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/3ED0DB36-C376-40F3-AE68-1569BDCAE629%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: There is no mind-body problem


> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/2019 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Oct 2019, at 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/24/2019 6:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Leibniz put it well in 1686, in his famous image of the mill: 
> consciousness, he said, "cannot be explained on mechanical principles, ie 
> by shapes and movements…. imagine that there is a machine [eg a brain] 
> whose structure makes it think, sense and have perception. Then we can 
> conceive it enlarged, so that we can go inside it, as into a mill. 
> Suppose that we do: then if we inspect the interior we shall find there   
>   nothing but parts which push one another, and 
> never anything which could explain a conscious experience."
> 
> Conclusion: consciousness can't be physical,
 
 That’s a valid reasoning.
>>> 
>>> No it's not.  Leibniz could find "producing flour" either, just parts that 
>>> push and pull.
>> 
>> I don’t understand. I think you miss here the 1p and 3p crucial distinction.
> 
> Oops.  I see I wrote "could" where I intended "couldn't".  
> 
> But that's not your objection is it.  The 1p would be the experience of the 
> mill in producing flour,

The production of flour by the mill is describable in pure 3p terms. I see not 
introspective machine there a priori.



> which one wouldn't find by inspecting the machine. 

Indeed. But that would be different if the mill contains some chips, and would 
be capable to describe itself, asserting things like “Yesterday there was no 
wind, and I was unable to make as much flour that I expected, I am sorry”.



> But that's because a mill doesn't have experience in the relevant sense.  It 
> may well have "mill experience", i.e. it's parts wear and that constitutes a 
> kind of memory and it responds to environments as more or less power is 
> available from it's water wheel.  But it can't have experience in the human 
> (or even dog sense) because it is not sufficiently complex nor programmed to 
> interact with it's environment based on internal modeling which includes 
> modeling itself.  If it had those things, then with sufficient study Leibniz 
> could find them and know about the 1p experience of the mill.

Not know. But he can bet, but then he bets on Mechanism, and eventually he will 
understand that physics has to be founded on machine’s 
psychology/theology/computer-science/arithmetic. He was going in that 
direction, and was not so far of the discovery of the universal machine.

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/d8b96c72-3ef9-b870-38d9-aad0d381d348%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/9120ECFD-2AC0-432A-B767-E8102E7B5F87%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?



> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical 
 MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its local 
 consciousness.
>>> Which explains NUMBER.
>> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number.
> 
> Number and the conception of number are the same thing. 

With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as primitive.

The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the 
universal Turing machine/numbers. 

The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic.

The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or 
computer science.



> That's why it's an abstract concept.  There could be no number 2 without the 
> concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without this 
> conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper.


Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. How could the 
Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without humans?

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> A scientific theory requires some assumptions/postulates/axioms, and all 
>> scientists assume the numbers with addition and multiplication (or something 
>> Turing equivalent). We cannot explain the number with anything less than a 
>> universal machinery. It happens that the natural numbers with + and * 
>> provides a simple universal machinery, and with computationalism, all the 
>> rest must be deduce from it (if the goal is to get a theory which handles 
>> both matter and consciousness).
>> 
>> 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/7203afbc-c0f7-2f28-b185-06a668929237%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/bc435417-57e4-840c-b670-57c0464d1bcb%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/988E8B7A-CF34-42BF-91B1-9260A661E511%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

> On 25 Oct 2019, at 14:49, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 7:50:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Oct 2019, at 13:25, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>> Prove there is something outside consciousness!
>> 
>> I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting 
>> idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks 
>> back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP.
> 
> 
> Does it? Kicking a rock is a dream-able event, and usually, it kicks back in 
> dream to (that’s too a dream-able event), so it is hardly an argument to 
> convince oneself that we are in presence of a “real solid rock”.
> 
> In my long work I call a dream “contra lucid” those dreams where we "test 
> reality", and get convinced that we are not dreaming. That happens often to 
> people interested in studying if we can know that we are not dreaming. 
> Usually, people who train themselves in lucid dream will live the phenomenon 
> of false awakening. They make a lucid dream, wake up, write the dream in 
> their diary and then, wake up again. That can happen multiple time. Bertrand 
> Russel claimed he got one hundred false awakening in succession. I think he 
> meant “many”.
> 
> With mechanism, it is not difficult to explain that we can know in a dream 
> that we are dreaming, but we cannot know-for-sure, when awaken, that we are 
> awake. It is comparable to “be wrong”. We can learn that we are wrong, but we 
> cannot learn that we are not wrong. Likewise a machine can discover she is 
> inconsistent, but she cannot justify that she is consistent.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> Dreams are not very coherent.

By dream, I mean (using Digital Mechanism, my working hypothesis) any 
computation rich enough to sustain a universal (Löbian) machine/number. So the 
waking state, relatively to a universal environment is just a special case of 
dream (a true dream if you want).

> I think idealism can be made very suspect on a number of bases. The world we 
> observe clearly presents evidence of its existence long before we were here.

I agree if by “we” you mean “we, the humans”. I disagree if by “we” you mean 
“we the universal numbers”.

> In fact it existed long before anything called life or biology.

Locally, yes. But I don’t really believe in it. I have never found even one 
evidence, and tuns of evidence to the contrary. Then with Mechanism we can test 
it, and QM somehow confirm the immaterialism implied by the digital mechanist 
hypothesis. 

> So the idealist might then point to the panpsychists who say even elementary 
> particles have some unit of consciousness.

That makes of course no sense at all, provably so if we assume Mechanism. But 
Mechanism is incompatible with the metaphysical belief in an ontological 
(primary) physical reality.

> The problem is that quantum mechanics would require there to be some sort of 
> observable in association with an operator. Panpsychism would say there is 
> some sort of quantum number involved with psychic existence. None exists. So 
> then the idealist would say the past is an illusion and all the evidence of 
> past cosmic existence is just a mental state or some sort.

With Mechanism, the physical reality exists, without much doubt, but it is not 
a fundamental reality, it arises from the first person statistics on all 
computations. This explains everything quantum mechanics predicts, without any 
ontological commitment other than the belief that 2+2= 4 and similar.

> The problem here is this lends itself to delusions, in fact to solipsism, and 
> if idealism is correct then maybe insanity is the norm. I choose not to go 
> there.

Me neither. But that is not a reason to believe that the physical *universe” is 
the fundamental reality. That is logically impossible if we assume that the 
brain is a locally finite machine. Such a “real universe” would need magical 
abilities to select a computation from the infinitely many going through our 
state.

Physicalism requires non-mechanism, and that is out of the scope of my 
expertise. I don’t go there either.

Bruno

> 
> LC 
>  
> 
> 
>> 
>> LC
>>  
>> 
>> On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 03:27:03 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> 
>> Idealism is of course rather silly. The idea that all that exists is 
>> consciousness is a "feel good" idea that is utterly preposterous.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/556f8a1c-50f4-489c-aa4f-3feeb9ce0606%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>>

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?