People think the corona virus is linked to the beer

[Lawrence Crowell]

This is where you realize how stupid people really are.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-corona-beer-not-related-google-trends-2020-1
 
 
I made a comment last week that I bet there will be some conspiracy 
narrative about the beer and the corona virus. Sure enough.

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/de5200db-587d-4184-867d-30edd5e10b18%40googlegroups.com.

Training deep quantum neural networks

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14454-2


@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/b785fd90-e452-4c6c-bd8d-70797a78f6f9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:35:44 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> Physics and the Totalitarian Principle 
> Helge Kragh 
>  
> (Submitted on 10 Jul 2019) 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04623 
>
> What is sometimes called the "totalitarian principle," a metaphysical 
> doctrine often associated with the famous physicist Murray Gell-Mann, 
> states that everything allowed by the laws of nature must actually exist. 
> The principle is closely related to the much older "principle of 
> plenitude." Although versions of the totalitarian principle are well known 
> to physicists and often appear in the physics literature, it has attracted 
> little reflection. Apart from a critical examination of the origin and 
> history of the totalitarian principle, the paper discusses this and the 
> roughly similar plenitude principle from a conceptual perspective. In 
> addition it offers historical analyses of a few case studies from modern 
> physics in which reasoning based on the totalitarian principle can be 
> identified. The cases include the prediction of the magnetic monopole, the 
> hypothesis of radioactive protons, and the discovery of the muon neutrino. 
> Moreover, attention is called to the new study of metamaterials. 
>
> "Feynman later commented on his path integral approach to quantum 
> mechanics as follows (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1966, p. 19-9):
> Is it true that the particle doesn’t just “take the right path” but that 
> it looks at all the other possible trajectories? … The miracle of it all 
> is, of course, that it does just that. That’s what the laws of quantum 
> mechanics say. [*The principle of least action*] isn’t that a particle 
> takes the path of least action, but that *it smells all the paths in the 
> neighborhood and chooses the one that has the least action*.
>


Interesting.

https://twitter.com/philipthrift/status/1226948036124954627

@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/41fb1a5e-2dc8-4cf2-88cf-ea12f9969a58%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote:
>
> Physics and the Totalitarian Principle 
> Helge Kragh 
>  
> (Submitted on 10 Jul 2019) 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04623 
>
> What is sometimes called the "totalitarian principle," a metaphysical 
> doctrine often associated with the famous physicist Murray Gell-Mann, 
> states that everything allowed by the laws of nature must actually exist. 
> The principle is closely related to the much older "principle of 
> plenitude." Although versions of the totalitarian principle are well known 
> to physicists and often appear in the physics literature, it has attracted 
> little reflection. Apart from a critical examination of the origin and 
> history of the totalitarian principle, the paper discusses this and the 
> roughly similar plenitude principle from a conceptual perspective. In 
> addition it offers historical analyses of a few case studies from modern 
> physics in which reasoning based on the totalitarian principle can be 
> identified. The cases include the prediction of the magnetic monopole, the 
> hypothesis of radioactive protons, and the discovery of the muon neutrino. 
> Moreover, attention is called to the new study of metamaterials. 
>
> "Feynman later commented on his path integral approach to quantum 
> mechanics as follows (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1966, p. 19-9):
> Is it true that the particle doesn’t just “take the right path” but that 
> it looks at all the other possible trajectories? … The miracle of it all 
> is, of course, that it does just that. That’s what the laws of quantum 
> mechanics say. [*The principle of least action*] isn’t that a particle 
> takes the path of least action, but that *it smells all the paths in the 
> neighborhood and chooses the one that has the least action*.
>

IMO, there must be a deeper principle, as yet undiscovered, to explain the 
principle of least action. BTW, your page reference makes no sense. 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/fb36a76a-1c96-4c78-a857-43866cf890f7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

['scerir' via Everything List]

Physics and the Totalitarian Principle

Helge Kragh https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Kragh%2C+H
(Submitted on 10 Jul 2019)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04623

> What is sometimes called the "totalitarian principle," a metaphysical 
> doctrine often associated with the famous physicist Murray Gell-Mann, states 
> that everything allowed by the laws of nature must actually exist. The 
> principle is closely related to the much older "principle of plenitude." 
> Although versions of the totalitarian principle are well known to physicists 
> and often appear in the physics literature, it has attracted little 
> reflection. Apart from a critical examination of the origin and history of 
> the totalitarian principle, the paper discusses this and the roughly similar 
> plenitude principle from a conceptual perspective. In addition it offers 
> historical analyses of a few case studies from modern physics in which 
> reasoning based on the totalitarian principle can be identified. The cases 
> include the prediction of the magnetic monopole, the hypothesis of 
> radioactive protons, and the discovery of the muon neutrino. Moreover, 
> attention is called to the new study of metamaterials.
> 

"Feynman later commented on his path integral approach to quantum mechanics as 
follows (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1966, p. 19-9):
Is it true that the particle doesn’t just “take the right path” but that it 
looks at all the other possible trajectories? … The miracle of it all is, of 
course, that it does just that. That’s what the laws of quantum mechanics say. 
[The principle of least action] isn’t that a particle takes the path of least 
action, but that it smells all the paths in the neighborhood and chooses the 
one that has the least action.

-- 
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/2063475301.1008777.1581341741888%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 11:16:33 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/9/2020 12:48 AM, smitra wrote: 
> > On 08-02-2020 07:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM smitra > 
> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On 08-02-2020 05:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >>> 
>  No, I am suggesting that Many-worlds is a failed theory, unable to 
>  account for everyday experience. A stochastic single-world theory 
> >>> is 
>  perfectly able to account for what we see. 
>  
>  Bruce 
> >>> 
> >>> Stochastic single word theories make predictions that violate those 
> >>> of 
> >>> quantum mechanics. 
> >> 
> >> No they don't. When have violations of the quantum predictions been 
> >> observed? 
> > 
> > A single world theory must violate unitary time evolution, it has to 
> > assume a violation of the Schrodinger equation. But there is no 
> > experimental evidence for violations of the Schrodinger equation. 
>
> Except for every measurement ever made of a quantum variable. 
>
> Brent 
>

*But doesn't decoherence theory, which I recall you like, use unitary time 
evolution in an attempt to solve the measurement problem? Or did I misread 
you? AG  *

>
> > While one can make such assumptions and develop a formalism based on 
> > this, the issue is then that in the absence of experimental proof that 
> > the Schrodinger equation is going to be violated, one should not claim 
> > that such a model is superior than another model that doesn't imply 
> > any new physics. 
> > 
> > The MWI may have some philosophical weaknesses like the derivation of 
> > the Born rule but the pragmatic variant of it where you just assume 
> > the Born rule is clearly superior to any other model where you're 
> > going to just assume that the known laws of physics are going to be 
> > violated to get to a model that to you looks more desirable from a 
> > philosophical point of view. 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> If the MWI (in the general sense of there existing a 
> >>> multiverse rather than any details of how to derive the Born rule) 
> >>> is 
> >>> not correct, then that's hard to reconcile with known experimental 
> >>> results. 
> >> 
> >> All experimental results to date are consistent with a single-world 
> >> theory. There are several possibilities for such a theory, but to 
> >> date, experiment does not distinguish between them. 
> > 
> > Single world theories require a violation of unitary time evolution of 
> > a perfectly isolated system. No experiment has ever observed this. 
>
> Because a perfectly isolated system can't be observed. 
>
> >> 
> >>> New physics that so far has never been observed needs to be 
> >>> assumed just to get rid of the Many Worlds. Also, this new physics 
> >>> should appear not at the as of yet unprobed high energies where the 
> >>> known laws of physics could plausibly break down, instead it would 
> >>> have 
> >>> to appear at the mesoscopic or macroscopic scale where the laws of 
> >>> physics are essentially fixed. 
> >> 
> >> Bohm's theory does not require as-yet-unobserved new physics. GRW do 
> >> postulate a new physical interaction, but that is below the level of 
> >> current experimental detectability. 
> > 
> > Bohm theory is not equivalent to QM, it only becomes equivalent to QM 
> > if one imposes a condition known as "quantum equilibrium". In general, 
> > Bohm theory in a condition of quantum non-equilibrium leads to 
> > violations of the Born rule. See here for details: 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium 
> > 
> > Then without any experimental evidence for the additional features of 
> > Bohm theory such as the signatures of quantum non-equilibrium, why 
> > would be prefer it over and above a theory that doesn't make such 
> > assumptions? One would have to have very strong theoretical objections 
> > against the theory. In case of the Standard Model one can predict that 
> > it will break down at very high energies. But I don't see why the MWI 
> > in the pragmatic sense where one assumes the Born rule is so bad that 
> > it merits considering alternative theories, particularly if those 
> > alternative theories make lots of unverified assumptions about new 
> > physics in domains where new physics is thought to be unlikely to 
> appear. 
> >> 
> >> Besides, why should you assume that the Schrodinger equation is the 
> >> ultimate physical law? 
> > 
> > It may be false, but absent experimental evidence that it is indeed 
> > false, theories that imply that it's false shouldn't get the benefit 
> > of the doubt just because they imply a single world. 
>
> Even though a single world is a well confirmed and often repeated 
> empirical observation? 
>
> 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 

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 12:20:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

I think Bruno's hope is to recover the Schroedinger equation as a kind of 
> stat-mech limit of his universal dovetailer threads.  This might comport 
> with Zurek's idea of quantum Darwinism.
>
> Brent
>



Bruno's 'dovetailer' seems more like Seth Lloyd's  'sum over computations': 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0501135.pdf

An appealing choice of quantum computation is one which consists of a 
coherent superposition of all possible quantum computations, as in the case 
of a quantum Turing machine whose input tape is in a uniform superposition 
of all possible programs. Such a ‘sum over computations’ encompasses both 
regular and random architectures within its superposition, and weighs 
computations according to the length of the program to which they 
correspond: algorithmically simple computations that arise from short 
programs have higher weight. The observational consequences of this and 
other candidate computations will be the subject of future work.



@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/d8af4b05-87c0-43c1-8921-4cb9a26d885f%40googlegroups.com.