date:20210116

That's behind a paywall.  Can you post a copy?
Brent

I hope it works

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf






-- 
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/125896415.1107545.1610868037954%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


As long as people can move to another site to say their piece, then there is no 
issue. On the other hand, the practice has been to censor and de-platform the 
opponents of twitter, youtube, banks, that were involved in the original 
censorship. My fix would be to repeal fcc ruling 232 and permit lawsuits 
against carriers like apple, google, etc. 

On Saturday, January 16, 2021 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:





On 1/16/2021 4:11 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:



> For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the censoring?
 
To censor someone you need the power to imprison or kill them if they say 
something you don't like, so no company is doing any censoring, some of them 
may want to but none of them are able to because only governments have enough 
power to do that. I'm not saying companies don't have any power at all because 
they do, and sometimes they use the power they do have unwisely, and that's a 
problem, but the solution is not to give even more power to the government 
because it already has quite enough power thank you. So what is the solution?  
I don't know, there may not be one, there is not always a solution to every 
problem and that's why we live in an imperfect world and probably always will, 
but we should try to make the imperfections as small as possible. And if 
history has taught us anything it's that  giving even more power to the 
government, which is already the most powerful institution in our society, will 
not make the world perfect.

Except it's not clear that the government is the most powerful institution.  On 
paper, the legislature has the most power, but in practice division and 
polarization have left it ineffective, with a consequence that it just 
delegates power with no oversight or control. 

And there are problems, like global warming that require international 
solutions.  That implies that governments need the power to make the necessary 
agreements and to live up to them.

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/3d09e850-af4b-066c-bbef-6a781f6c5a68%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/1226477468.2687093.1610861179928%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact
>>> with each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla
>>> in the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero
>>> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov.
>>> AG*
>>
>>
>> I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. If
>> anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and my
>> life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy.
>>
>
> *It can't be disproved because it makes no verifiable predictions! AG*
>
>
>> It’s just that it unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than
>> any other alternative, so I entertain it as the most likely explanation for
>> the observed data. To say it has zero grounding in empirical data is simply
>> false  - it’s the theory that simply takes the empirical data to its
>> logical conclusion without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function
>> is the whole thing. Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere
>> with one another is the same as asking what the mechanism is for the
>> Schrödinger wave function to interfere with itself. In the dual slit
>> experiment it’s an observed fact.
>>
>
> *The SE, when solved, give us the WF, which can be decomposed into a
> superposition of eigenstates in some appropriate vector space. But this
> superposition is not unique. So in what sense does the SE give us "an
> observed fact"? In fact, with numerous distinct possible superpositions,
> the worlds of the MWI seem ill-defined. AG*
>

I have wondered myself whether basis selection is a problem for MWI. I’m
less sure now that it is. Environmental einselection may resolve the basis
problem. We set up an experimental apparatus to select some basis, but
that’s just a special case of what happens naturally, whereby the
characteristics of the environment select the basis.

>
>
>> It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old view
>> of matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of “worlds”,
>> it just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the nature of
>> quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit experiment,
>> even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases when two
>> branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they
>> completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really
>> means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is
>> just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So the
>> mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts such
>> interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description.
>>
>
> *The problem, of course, is that the MWI offers no concept of the process
> of interference among OTHER worlds, so it's no surprise that it adds
> nothing to the mathematical description. AG  (More at end of this confusing
> file.)*
>

there you go with “of course” again as if your argument were self evident.
Theres no distinction between worlds (this or other) so of course there is
interference on and among the other branches too. I don’t know what you’re
talking about.

>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:32:49 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
 On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz
 wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, Januar

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing



On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with 
>> each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in 
>> the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero 
>> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov. 
>> AG*
>
>
> I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. If 
> anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and my 
> life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy. 
>

*It can't be disproved because it makes no verifiable predictions! AG*
 

> It’s just that it unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than any 
> other alternative, so I entertain it as the most likely explanation for the 
> observed data. To say it has zero grounding in empirical data is simply 
> false  - it’s the theory that simply takes the empirical data to its 
> logical conclusion without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function 
> is the whole thing. Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere 
> with one another is the same as asking what the mechanism is for the 
> Schrödinger wave function to interfere with itself. In the dual slit 
> experiment it’s an observed fact.
>

*The SE, when solved, give us the WF, which can be decomposed into a 
superposition of eigenstates in some appropriate vector space. But this 
superposition is not unique. So in what sense does the SE give us "an 
observed fact"? In fact, with numerous distinct possible superpositions, 
the worlds of the MWI seem ill-defined. AG*
 

> It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old view of 
> matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of “worlds”, it 
> just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the nature of 
> quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit experiment, 
> even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases when two 
> branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they 
> completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really 
> means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is 
> just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So the 
> mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts such 
> interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description.
>

*The problem, of course, is that the MWI offers no concept of the process 
of interference among OTHER worlds, so it's no surprise that it adds 
nothing to the mathematical description. AG  (More at end of this confusing 
file.)*

>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:32:49 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
>>> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are 
> occurring in the SAME 
>>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 12:47 am, 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the *superposition* psi =
> sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] .
>
> If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle
> through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the
> particle will
> *always* emerge 'up'. Why? It is a superposition, why not MWI?
>

That article does not show that MWI predicts anything other than what we
observe or what Copenhagen predicts. It adds to the superposition the fact
that M measures the spin as up then says “so if the spin is now definitely
up then what M’ observes will not depend on probability.” But that whole
argument presupposes a collapse model where e and M have some definite
value once M measures e by before M’ measures the state of M. What MWI says
is that M remains in a superposition of all outcomes until M’ interacts
with it. The stipulation that e an M are in a definite, singular state
before being measured is a red herring.

>
>
> Il 16/01/2021 13:25 Pierz Newton-John  ha scritto:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you
> have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate
> how that leads to internal inconsistency."
>
> They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476
>
>
> Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI, unlike
> AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the system M
> decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures the spin? If
> so, then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the same world as one
> another and there is only one possible measurement M’ can make. The outcome
> is not subject to probability. If on the other hand, the system M has not
> decohered with the common environment of M’, then M remains in a
> superposition of up and down measurement states until measured by M’ and it
> does not make sense to say that either the electron or M itself are in a
> definite state with respect to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has
> not yet split on the outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it
> .
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/610945189.1243543.1610804823781%40mail1.libero.it
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAArMS03KdQutDtH0fK3V97Ca038d2Gm3GAHQzngUZfmEjrg2tQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson  wrote:

> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with
> each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in
> the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero
> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov.
> AG*

I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. If
anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and my
life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy. It’s just that it
unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than any other alternative,
so I entertain it as the most likely explanation for the observed data. To
say it has zero grounding in empirical data is simply false  - it’s the
theory that simply takes the empirical data to its logical conclusion
without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function is the whole thing.
Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere with one another is
the same as asking what the mechanism is for the Schrödinger wave function
to interfere with itself. In the dual slit experiment it’s an observed
fact. It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old
view of matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of
“worlds”, it just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the
nature of quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit
experiment, even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases when
two branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they
completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really
means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is
just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So the
mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts such
interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description.

>
>
> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:32:49 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz
 wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7
>> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent
 measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are 
 occurring in the SAME
 OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
 OTHER worlds. *
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the
>>> same as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having 
>>> seen the electron
>>> go left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having 
>>> seen the electron
>>> go right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely 
>>> identical, so which
>>> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>>>
>>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI
 guarantee [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it
>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

https://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf
On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 1/16/2021 4:25 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you 
>> have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate 
>> how that leads to internal inconsistency."
>>
>> They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476
>>
>
> That's behind a paywall.  Can you post a copy?
>
> Brent
>
>
> Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI, unlike 
> AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the system M 
> decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures the spin? If 
> so, then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the same world as one 
> another and there is only one possible measurement M’ can make. The outcome 
> is not subject to probability. If on the other hand, the system M has not 
> decohered with the common environment of M’, then M remains in a 
> superposition of up and down measurement states until measured by M’ and it 
> does not make sense to say that either the electron or M itself are in a 
> definite state with respect to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has 
> not yet split on the outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.
>
>
>

-- 
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/1230984f-690e-470d-962b-b3a24791fd97n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

In the back of my paranoid limbic system, I imagined that covid was being
juiced up in the wuhan lab so that Xi could infect HK, and then send in the
troops into a dedicated hotzone, to show the world that they the Party, and
PLA, are true humanitarians. It must have escaped, some think, because of
sloppy lab practices by a tech, who carried it on him, to get lunch from the
near by sea food market--before it was to be released in HK.

On Friday, January 15, 2021 Alan Grayson
wrote:

Most likely, US vs China. Our Secretary of State recently disavowed "One China,
Two Systems" policy. Maybe not featured in this following link, but the
disavowal makes sense given what China has been doing in Hong Kong. AG

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/2021-gray-swan-us-and-china-go-war-over-taiwan

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:49:41 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

This is a video everyone should watch. In working on cyber-security since last
spring I have brushed into some of this and have come to know CICADA and its
role on the dark web. The world we live in is in a precarious state, where our
infrastructure depends on systems of vast complexity, but at the same time more
of humanity seems to be entering into some sort of voluntary schizophrenic
state.

This makes an important connection with this bizarre subculture of
cryptography on the web. There is literally a vast network of people out there
doing these things. In college I was a bit of a hacker, but it was elementary
stuff. Today, there is a dark industry of hacking the internet, and this has
resulted in a continual war. This war makes light of the old saying, "Is this a
private fight or can anyone join in?" Everyone has joined, and it is a huge
multi-networked struggle or conflict that involves ultimately all of us.

I worked as a contractor to two companies that did work with the INTEL
community. The reality then was you has the United States and the Soviet Union
in a dynamic tension, and this involved what I worked on which was SIGINT, or
signals in intelligence. The matrix of actors of this sort has grown
exponentially since the time of the late 80s and the first half of the 90s.
What occurs with cyber-security, even in the private world, is much the same
and it curiosly involves propaganda games. QAnon is really just the propaganda
wing of a much larger network of actors. In fact I suspect QAnon will fade
away, but something or maybe several new things will emerge this decade.

About every century some region of the world enters into some sort of
gregarious group-thought hypermania. This results in a mass disaster. Last
century this took place in Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan. Before then it was
the Napoleonic wars, and this pattern can be seen through the reformation wars
back to the middle ages. Even tribal or indigenous societies can have a pattern
of this, where every 3 or 4 generations they tend to fight wars. We are coming
in queue here for the next big global tango, It also might be worth pointing
out these have tended to happen with the introduction of new communication
technologies. None of this looks at all good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4vb6UWhf3o

--
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/29c38479-0e06-4397-9d03-ff5640a5654dn%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 1/16/2021 4:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> wrote:


/> For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the
censoring?/

To censor someone you need the power to imprison or kill them if they 
say something you don't like, so no company is doing any censoring, 
some of them may want to but none of them are able to because only 
governments have enough power to do that. I'm not saying companies 
don't have any power at all because they do, and sometimes they use 
the power they do have unwisely, and that's a problem, but the 
solution is not to give even more power to the government because it 
already has quite enough power thank you. So what is the solution?  I 
don't know, there may not be one, there is not always a solution to 
every problem and that's why we live in an imperfect worldand probably 
always will, but we should try to make the imperfections as small as 
possible. And if history has taught us anything it's that  giving even 
more power to the government, which is already the most powerful 
institution in our society, will not make the world perfect.


Except it's not clear that the government is the most powerful 
institution.  On paper, the legislature has the most power, but in 
practice division and polarization have left it ineffective, with a 
consequence that it just delegates power with no oversight or control.


And there are problems, like global warming that require international 
solutions.  That implies that governments need the power to make the 
necessary agreements and to live up to them.


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/3d09e850-af4b-066c-bbef-6a781f6c5a68%40verizon.net.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 1/16/2021 4:25 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List
> wrote:

Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of
MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then
proceeding to demonstrate how that leads to internal inconsistency."

They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476

That's behind a paywall. Can you post a copy?

Brent

Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI,
unlike AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the
system M decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures
the spin? If so, then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the
same world as one another and there is only one possible measurement
M’ can make. The outcome is not subject to probability. If on the
other hand, the system M has not decohered with the common environment
of M’, then M remains in a superposition of up and down measurement
states until measured by M’ and it does not make sense to say that
either the electron or M itself are in a definite state with respect
to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has not yet split on the
outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.

--
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/d29e600e-2c25-0475-11cd-ba52c37a17aa%40verizon.net.

Re: FW: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:18 AM Philip Benjamin 
wrote:

>> “No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same
>> reason, although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say
>> is a very unproductive thing to do”
>
>
> > [*Philip Benjamin*] There are hundreds if not thousands of instances to
> the contrary. Some are listed below.
>

I strongly oppose censorship, I think you have the perfect right to say
anything you like even if I think what you are saying is evil or stupid or
both, but I have the perfect right to refuse to lend you my megaphone so
you can say it louder. Being burned alive and the failure to receive tenure
are not equivalent, and not one of the things you listed is an example of
censorship or comes anywhere near to it. Church officials threatened to
torture Galileo to death if he didn't stop teaching that the earth went
around the sun, that is censorship. Today firing an astronomy professor who
teaches that the sun and the entire universe revolves around the earth is
not censorship, it's a good idea, and so is firing a geology professor who
teaches his students that dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago.  Expelling a
student because university administrators don't like that student's
political views is a very bad idea but that's not censorship either, it's
just a bad way to run a university.

And it's pretty pathetic to see our whiny little president whining about
big bad Twitter censoring him when the man has a fully equipped television
studio in the very house he lives in and can get on national television in
about two minutes anytime he wants.  A few days ago on TV one of the House t
raitors who voted to end our democracy was wearing a virus mask with the
words "censored" printed on it while a microphone was just inches from it
and she was on national TV spouting out her nonsense to millions of people
to see and hear. Bazaar!

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1pFvFr3S_jzmcX%3DeJYVzMNR05DfBa3GjjZM08ut4-B9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing


*What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with 
each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in 
the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero 
grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov. 
AG*
On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:32:49 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:



 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
>>> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring 
>>> in the SAME 
>>> OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
>>> OTHER worlds. *
>>
>>  
>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the 
>> same as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having 
>> seen the electron 
>> go left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen 
>> the electron 
>> go right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely 
>> identical, so which 
>> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>>
>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI 
>>> guarantee [...]
>>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it 
>> deals with probability.  
>>
>> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't 
>>> complicated. *
>>
>>
>> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple 
>> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and 
>> the other not so much.  
>>
>
> In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into 
> existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other 
> worlds in third 
> trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are 
> the SAME other 
> worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each 
> of these 
> worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
> ensemble of 
> measurements exist in these other world. AG
>
  
 You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" 
 worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in 
 precisely one 
 way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the 
 experiment. The 
 different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of 
 differentiations" 
 as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, 
 causing the 
 different worlds generated by the original experimental 
 difference to 
 multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the 
>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing



On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
>> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring 
>> in the SAME 
>> OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
>> OTHER worlds. *
>
>  
> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the 
> same as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen 
> the electron 
> go left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen 
> the electron 
> go right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely 
> identical, so which 
> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>
> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI 
>> guarantee [...]
>
>
> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it 
> deals with probability.  
>
> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't 
>> complicated. *
>
>
> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple 
> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and the 
> other not so much.  
>

 In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into 
 existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other 
 worlds in third 
 trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are 
 the SAME other 
 worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each 
 of these 
 worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
 ensemble of 
 measurements exist in these other world. AG

>>>  
>>> You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" 
>>> worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in 
>>> precisely one 
>>> way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the 
>>> experiment. The 
>>> different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of 
>>> differentiations" 
>>> as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, 
>>> causing the 
>>> different worlds generated by the original experimental 
>>> difference to 
>>> multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the 
>>> universal wave 
>>> function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be 
>>> the "same 
>>> world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each.
>>>
>>
>> This is what I have been saying all along! AG
>>
> No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one 
> measurement outcome in each world. However this business about 
> "same other 
>

FW: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread Philip Benjamin

general_the...@googlegroups.com  
Subject: RE: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[John K Clark]
"No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same 
reason, although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say is 
a very unproductive thing to do"
[Philip Benjamin]
   There are hundreds if not thousands of instances to the contrary. Some are 
listed below. That is why I call these Universities WAMP-Western Acade-Media 
Pagan(ism).
1.  https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/
2. 
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
  LOS
 ANGELES (CBSLA.com) - Attorneys for a California State University, 
Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft 
tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html
Astronomer Sues the University of Kentucky, Claiming His Faith Cost Him a 
Job
4. 
https://www.christianpost.com/news/professor-fired-after-speech-opposing-puberty-blocking-drugs-sues-university.html
A Psychiatry Professor fired after speech opposing puberty-blocking drugs 
sues university
5. 
https://mynewsla.com/crime/2021/01/11/chapman-professor-who-supports-trump-resists-calls-for-ouster/
A Chapman University law professor who has come under fire for his election 
fraud claims and participation in a rally led by President Donald Trump just 
before the insurrection at the Capitol fought back Monday against critics who 
are calling for his ouster from the university
6. http://www.theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php
7. https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS
   Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom ... What 
they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel! That rebel, Ben Stein 
(Ferris Bueller's Day Off) travels the world on his quest, and learns an 
awe-inspiring truth ... that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, 
denied tenure and even fired - for the crime of merely believing that there 
might be evidence of design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the 
result of accidental, random chance. To which Ben Says: Enough! And then gets 
busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 6:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
wrote:

> For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the censoring?

To censor someone you need the power to imprison or kill them if they say 
something you don't like, so no company is doing any censoring, some of them 
may want to but none of them are able to because only governments have enough 
power to do that. I'm not saying companies don't have any power at all because 
they do, and sometimes they use the power they do have unwisely, and that's a 
problem, but the solution is not to give even more power to the government 
because it already has quite enough power thank you. So what is the solution?  
I don't know, there may not be one, there is not always a solution to every 
problem and that's why we live in an imperfect world and probably always will, 
but we should try to make the imperfections as small as possible. And if 
history has taught us anything it's that  giving even more power to the 
government, which is already the most powerful institution in our society, will 
not make the world perfect.

> Which universities are censoring for the "safety of the students"

No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same reason, 
although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say is a very 
unproductive thing to do. And I think the idea that university students are 
such delicate snowflakes that they need protection from harsh language or 
exposure to views different from their own is ridiculous; they're not gonna be 
in college for their entire life and sooner or later they're going to have to 
toughen up if they want to live in the real world. So that's a problem, but the 
world is full of problems and some of them we just have to live with. I know 
one thing for sure: a government edict banning such a practice would cause more 
problems than it solved.

> We had 7 months of sporadic riots and the liberals (which I sometimes side 
> with) and now they freak out when conservatives targets the capital.

If you are not freaked out by a murderous mob of Stormtrumper zombies staging a 
coup d'état by at

RE: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread Philip Benjamin

[John K Clark]
"No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same 
reason, although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say is 
a very unproductive thing to do"
[Philip Benjamin]
   There are hundreds if not thousands of instances to the contrary. Some are 
listed below. That is why I call these Universities WAMP-Western Acade-Media 
Pagan(ism).
1.  https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/
2. 
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
  LOS
 ANGELES (CBSLA.com) - Attorneys for a California State University, 
Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft 
tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html
Astronomer Sues the University of Kentucky, Claiming His Faith Cost Him a 
Job
4. 
https://www.christianpost.com/news/professor-fired-after-speech-opposing-puberty-blocking-drugs-sues-university.html
A Psychiatry Professor fired after speech opposing puberty-blocking drugs 
sues university
5. 
https://mynewsla.com/crime/2021/01/11/chapman-professor-who-supports-trump-resists-calls-for-ouster/
A Chapman University law professor who has come under fire for his election 
fraud claims and participation in a rally led by President Donald Trump just 
before the insurrection at the Capitol fought back Monday against critics who 
are calling for his ouster from the university
6. http://www.theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php
7. https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Intelligence-Allowed-Ben-Stein/dp/B001BYLFFS
   Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom ... What 
they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel! That rebel, Ben Stein 
(Ferris Bueller's Day Off) travels the world on his quest, and learns an 
awe-inspiring truth ... that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, 
denied tenure and even fired - for the crime of merely believing that there 
might be evidence of design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the 
result of accidental, random chance. To which Ben Says: Enough! And then gets 
busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 6:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
wrote:

> For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the censoring?

To censor someone you need the power to imprison or kill them if they say 
something you don't like, so no company is doing any censoring, some of them 
may want to but none of them are able to because only governments have enough 
power to do that. I'm not saying companies don't have any power at all because 
they do, and sometimes they use the power they do have unwisely, and that's a 
problem, but the solution is not to give even more power to the government 
because it already has quite enough power thank you. So what is the solution?  
I don't know, there may not be one, there is not always a solution to every 
problem and that's why we live in an imperfect world and probably always will, 
but we should try to make the imperfections as small as possible. And if 
history has taught us anything it's that  giving even more power to the 
government, which is already the most powerful institution in our society, will 
not make the world perfect.

> Which universities are censoring for the "safety of the students"

No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same reason, 
although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say is a very 
unproductive thing to do. And I think the idea that university students are 
such delicate snowflakes that they need protection from harsh language or 
exposure to views different from their own is ridiculous; they're not gonna be 
in college for their entire life and sooner or later they're going to have to 
toughen up if they want to live in the real world. So that's a problem, but the 
world is full of problems and some of them we just have to live with. I know 
one thing for sure: a government edict banning such a practice would cause more 
problems than it solved.

> We had 7 months of sporadic riots and the liberals (which I sometimes side 
> with) and now they freak out when conservatives targets the capital.

If you are not freaked out by a murderous mob of Stormtrumper zombies staging a 
coup d'état by attacking the Capital Building which contained the Vice 
President and every single member of the House and Senate in an attempt to 
overturn the Constitution of the USA and a free election to keep their "Dear 
Leader" in power indefinitely then there is something very seriously wrong wi

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the *superposition* psi = 
sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] .

If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through 
a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will
*always* emerge 'up'. Why? It is a superposition, why not MWI?


> Il 16/01/2021 13:25 Pierz Newton-John  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of 
> > MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to 
> > demonstrate how that leads to internal inconsistency."
> > 
> > They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
> > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476
> > 
> > > 
> Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI, 
> unlike AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the system M 
> decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures the spin? If so, 
> then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the same world as one 
> another and there is only one possible measurement M’ can make. The outcome 
> is not subject to probability. If on the other hand, the system M has not 
> decohered with the common environment of M’, then M remains in a 
> superposition of up and down measurement states until measured by M’ and it 
> does not make sense to say that either the electron or M itself are in a 
> definite state with respect to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has not 
> yet split on the outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in 
> > the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >  .
> > 
> > > 
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>  .
> 

-- 
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/610945189.1243543.1610804823781%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you
> have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate
> how that leads to internal inconsistency."
>
> They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476
>

Well that argument at least demonstrates some understanding of MWI, unlike
AG. But I don’t think it’s a good argument at all. Has the system M
decohered and thus become entangled with M’ after M measures the spin? If
so, then M and M’ are already on the same branch/ in the same world as one
another and there is only one possible measurement M’ can make. The outcome
is not subject to probability. If on the other hand, the system M has not
decohered with the common environment of M’, then M remains in a
superposition of up and down measurement states until measured by M’ and it
does not make sense to say that either the electron or M itself are in a
definite state with respect to M’. Both branches/ worlds exist and M’ has
not yet split on the outcome. It’s a pretty basic point.

> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAArMS02UZAEHpwcVKp%2B0GitF%3DAa-FPwBqKZUco2doyV1Z3w0jg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-16 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the censoring?*
>

To censor someone you need the power to imprison or kill them if they say
something you don't like, so no company is doing any censoring, some of
them may want to but none of them are able to because only governments have
enough power to do that. I'm not saying companies don't have any power at
all because they do, and sometimes they use the power they do have
unwisely, and that's a problem, but the solution is not to give even more
power to the government because it already has quite enough power thank
you. So what is the solution?  I don't know, there may not be one, there is
not always a solution to every problem and that's why we live in an
imperfect world and probably always will, but we should try to make the
imperfections as small as possible. And if history has taught us anything
it's that  giving even more power to the government, which is already the
most powerful institution in our society, will not make the world perfect.

> > *Which universities are censoring for the "safety of the students"*
>

No universities are doing any censoring either and for exactly the same
reason, although I do think threatening to expel students for what they say
is a very unproductive thing to do. And I think the idea that university
students are such delicate snowflakes that they need protection from harsh
language or exposure to views different from their own is ridiculous;
they're not gonna be in college for their entire life and sooner or later
they're going to have to toughen up if they want to live in the real world.
So that's a problem, but the world is full of problems and some of them we
just have to live with. I know one thing for sure: a government edict
banning such a practice would cause more problems than it solved.

> *> We had 7 months of sporadic riots and the liberals (which I sometimes
> side with) and now they freak out when conservatives targets the capital.*
>

If you are not freaked out by a murderous mob of Stormtrumper zombies
staging a coup d'état by attacking the Capital Building which contained the
Vice President and every single member of the House and Senate in an
attempt to overturn the Constitution of the USA and a free election to keep
their "Dear Leader" in power indefinitely then there is something very
seriously wrong with you!

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3zG4YZLPGVoV7yGy_NWT4wd32ZjQi0FbmdwNXZXd0Wgg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-16 Thread Relatable

OK, but maybe the problem is in understanding? And asking questions.

Like, I don't think we could use our phones today before actually trying to
understand how to build them.

And if we are dealing with quantum, I thought that must be illogical.


On Sat, 16 Jan 2021, 09:37 'scerir' via Everything List, <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> "They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476";
>
> Apply:
>
https://cs.mcgill.ca/employment/294/
>
-- 
> 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/40617161.1239174.1610789854478%40mail1.libero.it
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAJ2dPMc5dgAT5kTzjX0_P%2Btbb%2B6c_Ceds7MS3xbv4uEe3RZOuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

"They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476";

the paper (pdf) is here: 

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf

-- 
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/40617161.1239174.1610789854478%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you have 
to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate how that 
leads to internal inconsistency."

They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476

-- 
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/5396.1238733.1610788558703%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing