Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/14/2021 12:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to
communicate what it is like to be a bat because of the inability
to act as a bat.  I'm not sure your brain could learn to
interpret visual input if it were not able to correlate it with
touch and movement.


Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist
substation level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat
neuronal system; some would say that we have to simulate also the
glial cells, some would ask for the simulation of the
microtubules, etc.

Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.


I would agree if you mean "know with certainty".  But clearly we
have pretty good ideas about how other people feel simply by
projecting our own feelings while imagining their situation.


I was surprised by this recent finding, that people who grow up in 
different cultures with different words (or lack of words) for 
different colors, actually appear to perceive colors differently. They 
take more time to pick up on color differences, for example:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgxyfqHRPoE 



I wonder why Evans hasn't tested his prediction that Russian speakers 
would be better at distinguishing shades of blue?  Surely there are 
plenty of Russian speakers available, even in England.


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/e1a34da4-ed49-f37d-888d-103a48fbea1a%40verizon.net.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to communicate
> what it is like to be a bat because of the inability to act as a bat.  I'm
> not sure your brain could learn to interpret visual input if it were not
> able to correlate it with touch and movement.
>
>
> Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist substation
> level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat neuronal system; some
> would say that we have to simulate also the glial cells, some would ask for
> the simulation of the microtubules, etc.
>
> Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.
>
>
> I would agree if you mean "know with certainty".  But clearly we have
> pretty good ideas about how other people feel simply by projecting our own
> feelings while imagining their situation.
>

I was surprised by this recent finding, that people who grow up in
different cultures with different words (or lack of words) for different
colors, actually appear to perceive colors differently. They take more time
to pick up on color differences, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgxyfqHRPoE

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjG6u8BHEVCasd08u4pk2PFp%2BDsTOvgHfRYmxbYn5upBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to 
communicate what it is like to be a bat because of the inability to 
act as a bat.  I'm not sure your brain could learn to interpret 
visual input if it were not able to correlate it with touch and movement.


Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist 
substation level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat neuronal 
system; some would say that we have to simulate also the glial cells, 
some would ask for the simulation of the microtubules, etc.


Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.


I would agree if you mean "know with certainty".  But clearly we have 
pretty good ideas about how other people feel simply by projecting our 
own feelings while imagining their situation.


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/9f4dffa0-5b96-9bad-18f5-480205eabbcf%40verizon.net.

Re: Massive Particles & Massless Waves: Behaving ≠ Being

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Meanwhile LC, I stumbled across your input on Sabine Hossenfelder's 
BackReaction blog, from last week. Do you really think that there are really 26 
or 11 physical dimensions, and how do we detect and interact with these? Or is 
it 26? Kalusza & Klein must laughing at us from one of these places?
On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:
Total nonsense.
LC

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 10:30:09 AM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote:


[Philip Benjamin]

Particles of matter with mass also BHAVE as waves [AS IF mass-less] with a 
wavelength, p=h/λ, first proposed by de Broglie, where p is momentum. Matter 
PARTICLE is found to have interference PROPERTIES AS IF any other wave. AS IF 
Logic ≠BOTH & Fallacy   Behaving ≠ Being.Behaving is a PROPERTY which can be 
epistemically understood. Being is ontology which is beyond the scope of finite 
sciences and finite brains, howsoever brilliant the brains be.  One need not 
confound being with behaving.  

The relationship between momentum and wavelength is fundamental for all 
PARTICLES (with MASS). That does not TRANSMUTE massive particles into massless 
waves, even in any microscope!! Electrons were the first particles with mass to 
be directly established to have the de Broglie wavelength. Protons, helium 
nuclei, neutrons, and many others have been observed later to display 
interference patterns when they interact with objects having masses but sizes 
similar to their de Broglie wavelengths.

Wolfgang Pauli (brilliant occultist-physicist) truly believed some of the views 
that Einstein accused Bohr with. He hypothesized a “lucid mysticism,” a 
synthesis between rationality and religion, and speculated that quantum theory 
could unify the psychological/scientific and philosophical/mystical approaches 
to consciousness. Philosopher and addict of Eastern mysticisms Arthur 
Schopenhauer, whose views on reality were in turn influenced by Eastern 
religions convinced Pauli of quantum mysticism. Planck considered religion 
(Christianity) and science compatible based on his opinion that they are both 
based on objectivity but refer to distinct facets of reality. Meanwhile, Paul 
Dirac rejected any kind of religious vocabulary, arguing that “religion is a 
jumble of false assertions with no basis in reality.”

Philip Benjamin

References.

Juan Miguel 
Marinhttps://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html.  . 
“’Mysticism’ in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy.” European Journal 
of Physics. 30 (2009) 807-822.

 

Morton Tolball.  
https://mortentolboll.weebly.com/quantum-mechanics-and-the-philosophy-of-niels-bohr.html

Bohr shows, that light in some experiments behaves, as if it is particles, and 
in others as if it is waves. And here we have the foundation for the next 
misinterpretation, that goes on, that it is the consciousness of the physicist, 
which affects the light. This has led to the misunderstanding in the public, 
that quantum mechanics should imply, that there isn´t given any objective or 
true description of the physical reality, consequently that it is the human 
consciousness, which produces the phenomena: subjectivism. The same 
misunderstanding characterizes by the way also Einstein´s theory of relativity, 
that this should support relativism.

 



-- 
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/4c9ce23d-29c1-41b6-8a56-e36bdbb66e02n%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/1822772467.2166211.1618424172781%40mail.yahoo.com.

RE: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Philip Benjamin]

[Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be]
"But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole 
point of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism)".
[Philip Benjamin]
  That is indeed physics proper. One has to appreciate your methodical and 
systematic approach to this problem. It is commendable that, unlike the order 
of the day,  you do not rely on the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad 
Verecundiam  respect for "authority" of customs, institutions and I.Q.s, to 
strengthen your argument and provide an illusion of proof. However, 
probabilities are not necessarily possibilities. Amplitude of PROBABILITIES is 
no exception.  A theory of reality is not REALITY itself. Numbers form 0 to 
infinity are syncategorematic nouns. Numbers of what? 2 + 2 = 4 is not a 
categorematic expression of REALITY unless the "of what" is specified. 2 
electrons + 2 electrons = 4 electrons  is a categorematic statement. The 
probability of a massive particle being (or even becoming) a massless wave is 
zero, nada, zilch.  If my memory is correct even in a nuclear reaction 
(explosion, included),  the total charge before and after a nuclear reaction is 
conserved; so also the total NUMBER of nucleons before and after a reaction are 
also the same. It is the binding energies that are released.
As far as electrons in these PROBABILITES you cite are concerned, Bohr has 
already assigned them to "stationary orbits" (predetermined energy levels). 
Then where do the new "stationary orbits" of NEW REALITIES speculated in 
various "mathematical/statistical" theories originate? What kind of 
"chemistries" are available for these NEW REALITIES, such as Many Worlds etc. ? 
What is the nature of a Many World chemistry?
Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat


On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin 
mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]
Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy particles 
is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely scientific 
theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with absurdities and 
speculations. Puzzle in, puzzle out!! There are  and never can be wavicles, 
only particles that behave AS IF in wave forms. An AS IF Logic is all that is 
needed, not Both & Fallacy. The Schrodinger Cat was introduced only to show the 
absurdity of taking probability statistics seriously. Probabilities are not all 
possibilities.

But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole point of 
quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism).





Some of these pioneers of QM were occultists, alcoholics and some other serious 
addictions. That is how the sorcerer-psychiatrist Carl Jung joined them. 
Worldviews determine scientific interpretations. Interpretations are not 
theories.  CopenPagan Interpretation (a  malaprop) is a pagan world-view, not 
scientific theory. That is how Albert Einstein strongly disagreed with Niels 
Bohr.


Which suggest that Einstein would have preferred Everett to Bohr. It is sad 
that Einstein died in 1955. Everett published the "many-worlds" formulation of 
QM (QM without collapse) in 1957. Most cosmologists prefer Everett, as it is 
hard to imagine some being observing the whole universe to collapse it in some 
state. Note that Belifante does exactly that: he claims that the use of QM in 
coslmology requires an observer for the whole universe, and likes to call it 
God, admitting that such a god is only a wave collapse, but Everett, like 
Mechanism, illustrates that this move is not necessary. We need only 2+2=4 & Co.

Bruno




Philip Benjamin
Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:22 AM  
everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat


On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson 
mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. AG


Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, and 
twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any possible 
corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).

That's true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, the 
indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring in, 
amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
universal number

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:40:08 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be 
>> claimed that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? 
>> Only the latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead 
>> simultaneously. AG 
>>
>>
>>
>> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state 
>> dead+alive, and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction 
>> than any possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
>>
>
> *Without any mathematical representation of the individual states of Dead 
> and Alive, how can it be claimed that Dead and Alive each satisfy the SWE? *
>
>
> By NOT adding the collapse postulate. Then even a state as “macroscopic” 
> as being a dead or alive cat will inherit the superposition ilmplied by 
> Schroedinger’s setting. That follows from the double linearly of both the 
> wave evolution and of the tensor products. The fact that a correct 
> description would use a huge number of dimension and a lot of tensor 
> products cannot be used to make the superposition going away.
>
>
>
>
>
> *And how will the superposition of states Dead + Alive give different 
> predictions than a mixed state of Dead and Alive? AG *
>
>
> Because all pure superposition state gives different predictions than 
> their corresponding mixed state. 
>

*Is this your idea of a proof, or even a plausibility argument? AG*
 

> Of course, it is technologically hopeless to maintain a real cat is a real 
> superposition, but this is only due to our technical impossibility to 
> isolate the cat from us. The cat state will leak to us very quickly, and we 
> will lose the mean to get the sign of interferences. Yet, without assuming 
> some collapse, it is there forever…
>
> That is a confirmation of mechanism, where an infinity of distinguishable 
> computations access our (relative) states, and makes us possibly diverging 
> into an infinity of alternate histories/computations. 
>
> The burden of the proof belongs to those who claim that there is an 
> ontological physical reality, but then you got the “mind-body” problem, the 
> “why there is something” problem, and also, you need to speculate of a non 
> mechanist theory in psychology and biology (making Darwin loosing all its 
> explanative power).
>
> There are tuns of evidences for Mechanism, and none for Materialism, as we 
> know since the Dream Argument, given that “evidences” are dream-able.
>
> (Many people confuse the evidences for the physical laws, which are number 
> relations, with evidences for an ontological physical universes, but those 
> are different. The ontological question is a metaphysical question, not a 
> physical question. It is to used in any paper of physics, even if implicit 
> in the mind of some cosmologists … perhaps.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state 
>> will be lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure 
>> state of seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In 
>> this case, the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same 
>> indeterminacy occurring in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite 
>> multiplication of all relative universal number state in arithmetic.
>>
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9ae7591-ebb1-482b-a2d4-a07a73ca588dn%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/b0bc2f61-e8a2-4cd1

Re: Massive Particles & Massless Waves: Behaving ≠ Being

[Lawrence Crowell]

Total nonsense.

LC

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 10:30:09 AM UTC-5 medinuclear wrote:

> *[Philip Benjamin] *
>
> Particles of matter with mass also BHAVE as waves [AS IF mass-less] with a 
> wavelength, p=h/λ, first proposed by de Broglie, where p is momentum. 
> Matter PARTICLE is found to have interference PROPERTIES AS IF any other 
> wave. * AS IF Logic **≠* *BOTH & Fallacy   Behaving ≠ Being. *Behaving is 
> a PROPERTY which can be epistemically understood. Being is ontology which 
> is beyond the scope of finite sciences and finite brains, howsoever 
> brilliant the brains be.  One need not confound *being *with *behaving*.  
>
> The relationship between momentum and wavelength is fundamental for all 
> PARTICLES (with MASS). That does not TRANSMUTE massive particles into 
> massless waves, even in any microscope!! Electrons were the first particles 
> with mass to be directly established to have the de Broglie wavelength. 
> Protons, helium nuclei, neutrons, and many others have been observed later 
> to display interference patterns when they interact with objects having 
> masses but sizes similar to their de Broglie wavelengths.
>
> Wolfgang Pauli (brilliant occultist-physicist) truly believed some of the 
> views that Einstein accused Bohr with. He hypothesized a “lucid mysticism,” 
> a synthesis between rationality and religion, and speculated that quantum 
> theory could unify the psychological/scientific and philosophical/mystical 
> approaches to consciousness. Philosopher and addict of Eastern mysticisms 
> Arthur Schopenhauer, whose views on reality were in turn influenced by 
> Eastern religions convinced Pauli of quantum mysticism. Planck considered 
> religion (Christianity) and science compatible based on his opinion that 
> they are both based on objectivity but refer to distinct facets of reality. 
> Meanwhile, Paul Dirac rejected any kind of religious vocabulary, arguing 
> that “religion is a jumble of false assertions with no basis in reality.”
>
> *Philip Benjamin*
>
> *References*.
>
> Juan Miguel Marin 
> https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html.  
> . “’Mysticism’ in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy.” European 
> Journal of Physics. 30 (2009) 807-822. 
>
>  
>
> Morton Tolball.  
> https://mortentolboll.weebly.com/quantum-mechanics-and-the-philosophy-of-niels-bohr.html
>
> Bohr shows, that light in some experiments behaves, as if it is particles, 
> and in others as if it is waves. And here we have the foundation for the 
> next misinterpretation, that goes on, that it is the consciousness of the 
> physicist, which affects the light. This has led to the misunderstanding in 
> the public, that quantum mechanics should imply, that there isn´t given any 
> objective or true description of the physical reality, consequently that it 
> is the human consciousness, which produces the phenomena: subjectivism. The 
> same misunderstanding characterizes by the way also Einstein´s theory of 
> relativity, that this should support relativism.
>
>  
>

-- 
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/4c9ce23d-29c1-41b6-8a56-e36bdbb66e02n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Philip Benjamin]
> Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy 
> particles is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely 
> scientific theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with 
> absurdities and speculations. Puzzle in, puzzle out!! There are  and never 
> can be wavicles, only particles that behave AS IF in wave forms. An AS IF 
> Logic is all that is needed, not Both & Fallacy. The Schrodinger Cat was 
> introduced only to show the absurdity of taking probability statistics 
> seriously. Probabilities are not all possibilities.

But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole point of 
quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism).




> Some of these pioneers of QM were occultists, alcoholics and some other 
> serious addictions. That is how the sorcerer-psychiatrist Carl Jung joined 
> them. Worldviews determine scientific interpretations. Interpretations are 
> not theories.  CopenPagan Interpretation (a  malaprop) is a pagan world-view, 
> not scientific theory. That is how Albert Einstein strongly disagreed with 
> Niels Bohr.   


Which suggest that Einstein would have preferred Everett to Bohr. It is sad 
that Einstein died in 1955. Everett published the “many-worlds” formulation of 
QM (QM without collapse) in 1957. Most cosmologists prefer Everett, as it is 
hard to imagine some being observing the whole universe to collapse it in some 
state. Note that Belifante does exactly that: he claims that the use of QM in 
coslmology requires an observer for the whole universe, and likes to call it 
God, admitting that such a god is only a wave collapse, but Everett, like 
Mechanism, illustrates that this move is not necessary. We need only 2+2=4 & Co.

Bruno


>   
> Philip Benjamin
> Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:22 AM  everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>  Subject: Re: Mixed State vs 
> Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
>  
> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>  
> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
> AG
>  
>  
> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
>  
> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
> lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
> seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, 
> the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring 
> in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
> universal number state in arithmetic.
>  
> 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/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%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/DA6C2075-1CAE-46E7-87D7-33C2E3DD308D%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> 

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson > > wrote:
>> 
>> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
>> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
>> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
>> AG
> 
> 
> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
> 
> Without any mathematical representation of the individual states of Dead and 
> Alive, how can it be claimed that Dead and Alive each satisfy the SWE?

By NOT adding the collapse postulate. Then even a state as “macroscopic” as 
being a dead or alive cat will inherit the superposition ilmplied by 
Schroedinger’s setting. That follows from the double linearly of both the wave 
evolution and of the tensor products. The fact that a correct description would 
use a huge number of dimension and a lot of tensor products cannot be used to 
make the superposition going away.





> And how will the superposition of states Dead + Alive give different 
> predictions than a mixed state of Dead and Alive? AG 

Because all pure superposition state gives different predictions than their 
corresponding mixed state. Of course, it is technologically hopeless to 
maintain a real cat is a real superposition, but this is only due to our 
technical impossibility to isolate the cat from us. The cat state will leak to 
us very quickly, and we will lose the mean to get the sign of interferences. 
Yet, without assuming some collapse, it is there forever…

That is a confirmation of mechanism, where an infinity of distinguishable 
computations access our (relative) states, and makes us possibly diverging into 
an infinity of alternate histories/computations. 

The burden of the proof belongs to those who claim that there is an ontological 
physical reality, but then you got the “mind-body” problem, the “why there is 
something” problem, and also, you need to speculate of a non mechanist theory 
in psychology and biology (making Darwin loosing all its explanative power).

There are tuns of evidences for Mechanism, and none for Materialism, as we know 
since the Dream Argument, given that “evidences” are dream-able.

(Many people confuse the evidences for the physical laws, which are number 
relations, with evidences for an ontological physical universes, but those are 
different. The ontological question is a metaphysical question, not a physical 
question. It is to used in any paper of physics, even if implicit in the mind 
of some cosmologists … perhaps.

Bruno





> 
> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
> lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
> seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, 
> the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring 
> in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
> universal number state in arithmetic.
> 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%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/a9ae7591-ebb1-482b-a2d4-a07a73ca588dn%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/3B4FA409-E166-4C93-9743-5BF5CCD95149%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to communicate what 
> it is like to be a bat because of the inability to act as a bat.  I'm not 
> sure your brain could learn to interpret visual input if it were not able to 
> correlate it with touch and movement.

Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist substation 
level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat neuronal system; some would 
say that we have to simulate also the glial cells, some would ask for the 
simulation of the microtubules, etc.

Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> On 4/11/2021 11:06 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>> Alternatively, let's do a thought experiment here, a pretend. Pretend that 
>> we are neuroscientists, and that we have lots  of research cash to spend? We 
>> have computer engineers at our disposal to design devices for us. So, we 
>> attach some sort of neural probes of highly advanced design, to bats, and a 
>> receiver of the signal to humans. The bats send and the humans receive, with 
>> the help of computer technology, transceivers, and all the rest. Thus, a 
>> human learns at least somewhat, what it's like to be bat. Sending the info 
>> from Human to a Bat would likely constitute torture, so let's not do that!
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jason Resch  
>> To: Everything List  
>> 
>> Sent: Sat, Apr 10, 2021 11:27 am
>> Subject: Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 6:28 AM John Clark > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 6:31 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> > They {bats} could in some sense even feel the surfaces with such sonar: is 
>> > the surface smooth or rough, hard or soft, etc. Sound reflects differently 
>> > from different types of surfaces. 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> > Would they feel these surface differences as colors, 
>> 
>> What you mean is, would they sense these surface differences as I SEE colors?
>> 
>> > or would it feel more like tactile sensations? 
>> 
>> What you mean is, would they sense these surface differences as I FEEL 
>> surfaces? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO. A particular bat 
>> senses surfaces not as you do but as a particular bat does. The only way 
>> Jason Resch Could ever know what it's like to be a particular bat would be 
>> for Jason Resch to turn into that bat, and even then he wouldn't know 
>> because then he wouldn't be Jason Resch anymore, he'd be a bat. And even a 
>> bat doesn't know what it's like to be another bat.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree generally with the idea that bat sonar sense could be completely 
>> alien to both our sight and our touch.
>> 
>> And while I can't know what it's like to be a bat anymore than a bat can 
>> know what it's like to be me, we can't rule out the existence of 
>> super-states of consciousness, perhaps possessed by Jupiter brains, which 
>> would be able to simultaneously hold in mind and compare different brain 
>> states, just as our vision can simultaneously look upon two faces and 
>> compare them.
>> 
>> If you could be this supermind then you might be able to know what it's like 
>> to be a bat and how that's different from being John.
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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/CAJPayv0Zr7Cs6FYP-daK38W2rp7f5z6AeJFYKvUAhzJ%3D2FXtjw%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjdLaiVNpvHyW-94q4SOMzuJ1xaA8Sq5G4yWvunBbLY%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everythin

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 04:44, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> How about this article and embedded paper, from some physicists employed by 
> Microsoft?
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k
> 
> Basically, that the cosmos is really a self-learning computer is a conclusion 
> that suggests that laws are hard to pin down because the "Operating System," 
> (Blessed, be He-She-It-Them) is always coming up with new understandings? 


The physical universe cannot be a computer, because  that implies Mechanism, 
but Mechanism makes the physical universe into a non computable statistics on 
all (relative) computations, which cannot be emulated by any computer.

If “I” am a machine, Reality is not Turing emulable, and the physical reality 
too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing emulable.

In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not a 
thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + Turing…).

Bruno





> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 11:05 am
> Subject: The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg)
> 
> 
>> On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin > > wrote:
>> 
>> [Philip Benjamin]
>>  First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses 
>> to the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially 
>> occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not 
>> science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a 
>> self-description or a general observation .  Paganism is genuinely germane 
>> here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant transformation” 
>> pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, philosophies, polytheistic 
>> superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of knowable universe and 
>> investigative explorations that finally led to the development of science 
>> and technologies which the rest of the pagan world of civilizations and 
>> mystic scholarships could not initiate.
> 
> 
> I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular the 
> line:
> 
> Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … 
> Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist one 
> in particular).
> 
> I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when 
> theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, who 
> use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, in 
> place of trying to solve problems.
> 
> The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam, was only half enlightenment, as 
> the main and most fundamental science metaphysics/theology/philosophy has 
> been maintained in charlatanism, literature, politics… 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The WAMP is a stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the 
>> Five Day workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and 
>> unheard of in other cultures.  That is not  “white trash” (N/A to Philip 
>> Benjamin anyway) as some here label, but a hard historical fact.  
> 
> We might both appreciate St-Augustin, but maybe for the exact opposite 
> reason… (I don’t know).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be 
>> enumerated.
>> 1 .  Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science,
> 
> 
> It is science if the theory is not claimed as true, and is presented in a 
> sufficiently precise way that it is testable/refutable.
> 
> 
> 
>> even if it be based on scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian 
>> sorceries are not
>>   necessarily sciences.
> 
> 
> OK. (That can be debated as some of their statements are theorem in the 
> physics derived from the theology (the Solovay G* logic) of the 
> arithmetically sound machines. You might to study some of my papers(*).
> 
> 
> 
>> They are worldviews based on the notions of particle-wave dualism and the 
>> BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave-
>>   likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be 
>> described mathematically by via AS IF logic. 
> 
> 
> I do not assume a physical ontological reality, nor do I assume any theory. 
> 
> I do not doubt about the existence of a physical reality, but I do not take 
> it as the fundamental theory a priori.
> My work shows how to test such ontological existence, and thanks to “Quantum 
> Mechanics without Wave Collapse”, a rather strong case can be made that 
> Nature favours Descartes’ Mechanism (and its immaterialism and non 
> physicalism) instead of Aristotle ’s physicalism/materialism.
> 
> I can explain that Mechanism and Materialism, widely confused, are in 
> complete opposition to each others, and inconsistent when taken 
> simultaneously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 2 . Bio dark-mat