date:20210704

Jason, given a cosmological context for your "stable" laws, Sabine Hossenfelder 
in this video seems to suggest that "laws" are only stable as long as the 
spatial false vacuum exists. That a true vacuum is a null state, which is 
stable but dormant, where energy is completely conserved. Perhaps with an 
accelerated expansion of the cosmos, the universe, while the energy lasts, 
produces stable initial laws, which eventually change over billions of years, 
some quicker, some much longer? Hossenfelder can explain this superbly, unlike 
myself, if you have a few minutes?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FirHDz0BFvk


-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 10:38 pm
Subject: Re: Why are laws of physics stable?



On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:

  
  On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
  
  
 
  On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
  
  
  On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
  
  
 
  On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
  
  
  On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
  
 
  On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
  

   And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability 
different from 0.5 for each possible outcome? 
  You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of probability 
(self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in Everett or the 
Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50 split when only two 
outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with experience.   
 
  In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue and red 
balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection of a ball: 
blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red balls in 
the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of branching worlds 
necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible outcomes?
   
 
  It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for it 
being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.  In the 
other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get implemented.  
There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those numbers to 
one world or the other.  You can just make it an axiom.  Or equivalently, if 
you can show these are odds ratios, you can invoke Gleason's theorem as the 
only consistent probability measure.  But all that is extra stuff that MWI 
claims to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger equation evolution. Brent
   
   Is this question unique to MW? 
  Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in 
explaining the Born rule?  
 Yes.  They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger equation and 
linear evolution of the state.  They explicitly recognize that you need a 
probability interpretation to connect with observations.
   
   
  But if all (including MW) require a 'probability interpretation', then I 
don't see the disadvantage of MW here. 
  What additional assumptions are needed by MW that aren't needed by the 
others?  
 
  It needs the assumption that the splitting or the selection of split is 
random per the Born rule.  True this, or equivalent is needed in the other 
interpretations.  But given that you need this interpretation, why keep all 
those worlds.  
All QM interpretations are "many-component" theories. It's just that some posit 
that, at certain (often not well-defined) times, all but one of those 
many-components stop existing. So as to "Why keep those components?" I think it 
leads to a simpler theory, and one is more in the spirit of all other physical 
theories: it's reversible, linear, local, deterministic, and avoids the fuzzy 
definitions around measurement, observation, consciousness, etc. MW doesn't add 
the many-components, rather it subtracts the step of "deleting all but one of 
them." 
You've already committed to a probability interpretation: So instead of: MWI 
axiom: Everything happens in proportionate number of worlds per Born and then 
one is selected per self-locating uncertainty in accordance with a uniform 
random distribution. You can have
  CI: The possible worlds have probabilities of being realized per Born and one 
of them is.
  

I see. Thanks that is helpful. Though I don't see it as a big downside for a 
physical theory to require assuming a theory of probability. Physical theories 
already require the assumption of theories of logic, theories of arithmetic, 
theory of geometry, and so on. And even if you start with Copenhagen, once one 
entertains theories like eternal inflation, with potentially infinite ensembles 
of duplicate universes/observers/experiments, you are back to the same sorts of 
probability questions that MW introduced.
Jason
 
 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything Li

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 7/4/2021 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
All QM interpretations are "many-component" theories. It's just that 
some posit that, at certain (often not well-defined) times, all but 
one of those many-components stop existing. So as to "Why keep those 
components?" I think it leads to a simpler theory, and one is more in 
the spirit of all other physical theories: it's reversible, linear, 
local, deterministic, and avoids the fuzzy definitions around 
measurement, observation, consciousness, etc. MW doesn't add the 
many-components, rather it subtracts the step of "deleting all but one 
of them."



I don't think it avoids those fuzzy definitions.  There's just some hand 
waving that decoherence will make cross terms in the density matrix 
small so we can ignore them and set them to zero and not the world has 
split and we can renormalize the probabilities relative to what we've 
measured.  But the cross terms being small in one basis doesn't mean 
they are small in other bases.  So setting them to zero is just as 
arbitrary or non-arbitrary as Bohr's "collapse".  It's only keeping them 
that makes the theory reversible.


And as in the multiverse case, if you let the number be infinite you 
have the same measure problems over an infinite set.  If you just assume 
it's very big but not infinite then that's the same as assuming there is 
some smallest non-zero probability and when the Born predicted 
probability is less than that it must be zero.  Of course you could 
avoid that that letting the number grow, but then you're back to the 
splitting problem...when exactly does it split and can we really zero 
those cross terms.


So I don't think it's a simpler theory.  I think it's just distaste for 
randomness.


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/4453213f-96dc-9fdd-535b-959362ffde77%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 6:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:



On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no
mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger
equation. In one world A happens.  In the other world B
happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get implemented.

For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in
general, the proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where
B happens is 16/9.


But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure
and the split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.  Which then
makes it just like Copenhagen.  Note that that the odds ratio 16:9
depends on the interaction with measuring instruments (some other
measurement would yield different odds) and so it depends on at
what point you stop considering superpositions and say "That's
classical enough.  Let's just zero out the cross terms in the
density matrix."  Something Heisenberg or Born could have done and
essentially what Bohr said.  He realized that any measurement that
people could agree on would have to be classical.  So he held that
the Heisenberg cut could be anywhere close enough to consciousness
to be quasi-classical.

Brent


Could it be because the mind is identified with a classical 
computation while the brain is ultimately a quantum mechanical system?



Of course the brain is a quantum system, but as a computer it works like 
a classical computer (which is also a quantum system) for the very good 
evolutionary reason that it's survival depends on dealing with big, hot 
quasi-classical things like fruit and fish and tigers and other humans.  
If it gets a little bit of randomness from K40 decays or cosmic 
rays,...well a little bit of randomness can be useful, but not much.


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/2b647764-d273-8c0a-139e-37c956300901%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread smitra


On 04-07-2021 08:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 2:59 PM smitra  wrote:


On 02-07-2021 06:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:


No, I am not tracing out anything. I am looking at whether an
interference pattern is formed or not. I don't have to detect the

IR

photons in order for the interference to be destroyed.


You choose to look at an interference pattern involving only part of
the
relevant degrees of freedom and then you find that there is no
interference pattern.


That does not make sense.


You are not observing the IR photons, there is still an interference 
pattern in the many particle state involving all the relevant particles.





That's equivalent to replacing the pure state by
tracing out the IR photons and considering the density matrix
describing
the reduced state.


No, that is not what is going on. I am not "tracing out" the IRphotons
-- I don't even know what that might mean. I can observe the photons,
or choose not to observe them, that will make no difference. It is the
existence of the IR photons with sufficient resolution to determine
'which way' information at the slits, that is relevant. If such
photons exist, whether or not they are ever observed, the interference
pattern vanishes. This is a simple matter of the fact that the
interference depends on coherence at the slits. If there is some way
that one could determine which slit the buckyballs went through, then
there is no interference - the determination has decohered the paths,
destroying the possibility of interference. This happens whether the
IR photons are observed or not -- it is merely a matter of their
existence: an 'in principle' determination of which way information.

So it is not a matter of 'tracing over' any degrees of freedom at all.
There is no reduced density matrix involved. I do not consider the
situation when the ball went through the left slit compared with the
situation in which the ball went through the right slit. There is no
"splitting into worlds according to paths" here. As stated, it is not
even necessary to use the IR photons to make a path determination --
their mere existence is all that is required to inhibit the
interference at the downstream screen.


You need to consider the many particle interference pattern where you 
use different screens for each photon and a screen for the balls. You 
consider the number of balls on the screen for the balls as a function 
the position on this screen for fixed positions of dots on the screen 
for the corresponding IR photons. For every such fixed position of the 
dots made by the IR photons there will be a different interference 
pattern of the balls. If you don't observe the IR photons in this way, 
then the pattern for the balls will be the integral over all the 
interference patters, which means that the interference pattern will be 
washed out.






It's implausible that escaping IR photons should be relevant for

the

question of what an observer is, what observations are etc.


How is it implausible? It is the inevitable existence of the IR
photons that ensures that the measurement process is irreversible.

It

is the formation of permanent (irreversible) records in the
environment that determines the existence of a measurement. If no

such

records are made then no measurement has been made.


While IR photons and permanent records are associated with
macroscopic
observers making observations, these things cannot play a
fundamental
role in the measurement process if we assume that QM is indeed a
fundamental theory that also describes observers.


The formation of permanent records is as much a fully quantum process
as anything else.

Permanent records only arise in the classical limit of QM which is a 
degenerate limit, i.e. the classical limit is no longer consistent with 
QM, which proves that permanent records are unphysical and cannot 
therefore explain observations.



If QM is exactly true
then one cannot make an essential part of the theory dependent on a
degenerate limit of this theory that is in violation of this theory.


The formation of records is not a violation of QM. It is not a
degenerate limit of the theory. It does not depend on the existence of
a separate classical realm, although the formation of permanent
records of experimental outcomes may be an important part of the
emergence of the classical from the quantum substrate.  Nothing in
what I have said about the buckyball experiments depends on the
existence of a classical limit.

Interference in the buckyball still exists when doing an appropriate 
multi-particle experiment. Of course, such experiments are extremely 
difficult to do, but it would not violate the laws of physics to perform 
such an experiment. The difficulty is, of course, that there are a very 
large number of IR photons being emitted and you have to use a screen 
for each photon. But nothing in the laws of physics says that this is 
forbidden. This would only truly become impossible if there were an

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>>

 And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability
 different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?

 You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of
 probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in
 Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50
 split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
 experience.

>>>
>>> In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue
>>> and red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection
>>> of a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and
>>> red balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of
>>> branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible
>>> outcomes?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
>>> it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.
>>> In the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get
>>> implemented.  There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one
>>> of those numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an
>>> axiom.  Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can
>>> invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But
>>> all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure
>>> Schroedinger equation evolution.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>> Is this question unique to MW?
>>
>> Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in
>> explaining the Born rule?
>>
>> Yes.  They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger equation
>> and linear evolution of the state.  They explicitly recognize that you need
>> a probability interpretation to connect with observations.
>>
>
> But if all (including MW) require a 'probability interpretation', then I
> don't see the disadvantage of MW here.
>
> What additional assumptions are needed by MW that aren't needed by the
> others?
>
>
> It needs the assumption that the splitting or the selection of split is
> random per the Born rule.  True this, or equivalent is needed in the other
> interpretations.  But given that you need this interpretation, why keep all
> those worlds.
>
All QM interpretations are "many-component" theories. It's just that some
posit that, at certain (often not well-defined) times, all but one of those
many-components stop existing. So as to "Why keep those components?" I
think it leads to a simpler theory, and one is more in the spirit of all
other physical theories: it's reversible, linear, local, deterministic, and
avoids the fuzzy definitions around measurement, observation,
consciousness, etc. MW doesn't add the many-components, rather it subtracts
the step of "deleting all but one of them."


> You've already committed to a probability interpretation: So instead of:
>
> MWI axiom: Everything happens in proportionate number of worlds per Born
> and then one is selected per self-locating uncertainty in accordance with a
> uniform random distribution.
>
> You can have
>
> CI: The possible worlds have probabilities of being realized per Born and
> one of them is.
>
>
> I see. Thanks that is helpful. Though I don't see it as a big downside for
a physical theory to require assuming a theory of probability. Physical
theories already require the assumption of theories of logic, theories of
arithmetic, theory of geometry, and so on. And even if you start with
Copenhagen, once one entertains theories like eternal inflation, with
potentially infinite ensembles of duplicate
universes/observers/experiments, you are back to the same sorts of
probability questions that MW introduced.

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/5dcbf0d0-69fc-93d7-1cff-794e05cc8503%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" gro

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 6:33 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in
general, the proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where
B happens is 16/9.

But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure
and the split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.

Calculating probabilities by counting objects in a collection from
which a random selection is made is not an additional axiom; it's the
definition of probability.

But there's no random selection involved unless you make it a
postulate. Otherwise it's just a collection. And if there's a
selection (by nature) then why not a selection of one that is realized?

Brent

In MWI the probabilities must be calculated by counting the branches
because the selection is made from a collection of branches. We know
that the probabilities are such as given by the Born rule, either by
logical necessity (as you say) or from observational evidence, and so
the proportions of the numbers of branches are the same as
probabilities given by the Born rule.

--
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/051a8557-0e05-4d81-baee-10d657ba1115n%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/3d6ee38f-820f-35ca-836a-3b7690e1c2ac%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 5:54 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many
to really be in?

I don't select it; nature does.

That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets
entangled with every different result and so is equally in each world.

I am conscious only of one world, so my consciousness is not in each 
world. Copies of me and their consciousnesses are in different worlds.


So consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brains or other quantum 
systems.


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/d240e256-0089-9987-a001-732ad2f063bd%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:



On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:


On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:


On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:


And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a
probability different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?

You would seem to be looking for a branch counting
explanation of probability (self-locating uncertainty).
But there is no mechanism in Everett or the Schrodinger
equation to give anything other than a 50/50 split when
only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at
variance with experience.


In the classical example with balls you may have a
collection of blue and red balls so there are only two
possible outcomes of a random selection of a ball: blue and
red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red
balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the
proportion of branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there
are only two possible outcomes?



It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no
mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger
equation. In one world A happens.  In the other world B
happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get
implemented. There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that
assigns one of those numbers to one world or the other.  You
can just make it an axiom.  Or equivalently, if you can show
these are odds ratios, you can invoke Gleason's theorem as
the only consistent probability measure.  But all that is
extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure
Schroedinger equation evolution.

Brent

Is this question unique to MW?

Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s)
in explaining the Born rule?


Yes.  They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger
equation and linear evolution of the state.  They explicitly
recognize that you need a probability interpretation to connect
with observations.


But if all (including MW) require a 'probability interpretation', then 
I don't see the disadvantage of MW here.


What additional assumptions are needed by MW that aren't needed by the 
others?



It needs the assumption that the splitting or the selection of split is 
random per the Born rule.  True this, or equivalent is needed in the 
other interpretations.  But given that you need this interpretation, why 
keep all those worlds.  You've already committed to a probability 
interpretation: So instead of:


MWI axiom: Everything happens in proportionate number of worlds per Born 
and then one is selected per self-locating uncertainty in accordance 
with a uniform random distribution.


You can have

CI: The possible worlds have probabilities of being realized per Born 
and one of them is.


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/5dcbf0d0-69fc-93d7-1cff-794e05cc8503%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 3:13 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:

>> An intelligent quantum computer is perfectly capable of
creating a document specifying that at a certain time it had
information in its memory banks that indicated which slot a
photon went through but not actually mentioning which slot it was,

/> That's the step that I doubt can be implemented within QM.  Of
course it can record quasi-classically (so it can be read out)
every time it detects a which-way and it can maintain a count of
them.  But it isn't conscious of the which-way values, only that
they were counted./

It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent butas 
for consciousness, how did you determine that it was not conscious?For 
that matter how did you determine that I am conscious? But let's get 
out of the consciousness quagmire for a moment so I can ask you a 
question, leaving behind the interpretation of the experiment 
concentrating only on its results, if it was actually performed as 
described do you think interference bands would be on that 
photographic plate or would there be no such bands? I would bet 
money the bands would be there on that plate even though there's no 
longer any which way information remaining. So, what would you put 
your money on, bands or no bands?

I would guess the interference bands would be present exactly because, 
ex hypothesi, the which-way information was quantum erased.

> /So the interference pattern showing up at the end doesn't do
anything to invalidate Copenhagen or similar interpretations.
/

If interference bands are on that photographic plate then either Many 
Worlds is correct ora rock is just as likely to be conscious as one of 
your fellow human beings because intelligent behavior would tell you 
nothing about consciousness. But if there are no bands I would 
immediately concede and say Many Worlds must be wrong. What outcome 
would make you concede?

Concede what?  I would concede that past records, now quantum erased, 
would destroy the interference simply by the existence of knowledge that 
they once existed.  But I'd want to investigate how this "knowledge" had 
causal reach into the past.

> The entire point of this experiment is to determine if conscious 
stuff operates according to the same
laws of physics as non-conscious stuff, I'm betting that they do.

>/So am I.  Conscious stuff works by//decohering quantum
superpositions/

Quantum mechanics is mysterious and consciousness is mysterious, but 
other than that I don't think the two have anything to do with each 
other. But even if I'm wrong and they do it wouldn't make any 
difference in this case because an intelligent quantum computer is 
certainly capable of decohering quantum superpositions.

That's right.  You're the one that cast the hypothetical in terms of 
consciousness.  I'm happy with "intelligent".  But I don't see that it 
makes any difference.  Yes, a QC can decohere quantum superpositions, 
but it can't both decohere them and quantum erase them.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 

gbty

--
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/CAJPayv14v9Lg0j2sD4dE-8xmXTNKkNfxEMr5iJH%2BxoWZofOrHQ%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/0a18362c-4ab0-041e-66ec-e643105dced5%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:58:33 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote:

I find the differentiation of preexisting states a more palatable way to 
> think of splitting universes, which tends to raise questions that create 
> misunderstanding (like: where does the energy come from to make these other 
> worlds). The many minds interpretation seems to favor this view, but it 
> left open the question of where these infinite mind states came from. 
> Bruno's "many worlds of arithmetic" provides a plausible answer, in my 
> opinion.
>

If a universe split similarly like an amoeba splits into two, wouldn't we 
observe the mass of our universe drop by half? Or would its mass drop by 
half but we wouldn't notice because the mass of all objects would drop 
proportionally? Or would the mass of each branch be the same as the mass of 
the original universe, which would mean that the total mass was doubled at 
the split?  

-- 
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/687ad493-3ec1-4640-b7df-abcdbc3301d7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the 
> proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9.
>
> But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the 
> split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.
>
Calculating probabilities by counting objects in a collection from which a 
random selection is made is not an additional axiom; it's the definition of 
probability. In MWI the probabilities must be calculated by counting the 
branches because the selection is made from a collection of branches. We 
know that the probabilities are such as given by the Born rule, either by 
logical necessity (as you say) or from observational evidence, and so the 
proportions of the numbers of branches are the same as probabilities given 
by the Born rule.

-- 
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/051a8557-0e05-4d81-baee-10d657ba1115n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability
>>> different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?
>>>
>>> You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of
>>> probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in
>>> Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50
>>> split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
>>> experience.
>>>
>>
>> In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue and
>> red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection of
>> a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red
>> balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of
>> branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible
>> outcomes?
>>
>>
>> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
>> it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.
>> In the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get
>> implemented.  There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one
>> of those numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an
>> axiom.  Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can
>> invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But
>> all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure
>> Schroedinger equation evolution.
>>
>> Brent
>>
> Is this question unique to MW?
>
> Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in
> explaining the Born rule?
>
> Yes.  They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger equation
> and linear evolution of the state.  They explicitly recognize that you need
> a probability interpretation to connect with observations.
>

But if all (including MW) require a 'probability interpretation', then I
don't see the disadvantage of MW here.

What additional assumptions are needed by MW that aren't needed by the
others?

Jason


Brent
>
>
> I don't understand the problem that's unique to MW.
>
> 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/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%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/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%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/029a1053-cbc1-0070-30e0-ad085140200e%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/CA%2BBCJUhQS_M%2BU6qGgbx5GbqOhiV5-NFZT7wpkgrCo6OpHRG%3DaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
>> it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.
>> In the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get
>> implemented.
>>
> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the
> proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9.
>
> But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the
> split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.  Which then makes it just like
> Copenhagen.  Note that that the odds ratio 16:9 depends on the interaction
> with measuring instruments (some other measurement would yield different
> odds) and so it depends on at what point you stop considering
> superpositions and say "That's classical enough.  Let's just zero out the
> cross terms in the density matrix."  Something Heisenberg or Born could
> have done and essentially what Bohr said.  He realized that any measurement
> that people could agree on would have to be classical.  So he held that the
> Heisenberg cut could be anywhere close enough to consciousness to be
> quasi-classical.
>
> Brent
>
>
Could it be because the mind is identified with a classical computation
while the brain is ultimately a quantum mechanical system?

Jason


>   There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those
>> numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an axiom.  Or
>> equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can invoke
>> Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But all that
>> is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger
>> equation evolution.
>>
> In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting of
> branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball from a
> basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are infinitely many
> branches in MWI, different ways of counting give different probabilities,
> which means there are different possible probability measures, and so MWI
> needs an additional axiom that specifies the measure and thus the way of
> counting the branches. You say that the only possible (consistent) measure
> is the Born rule; in that case no additional axiom about the measure is
> needed (beyond the axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the
> branches must be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the
> Born rule.
>
> --
> 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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%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/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%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/CA%2BBCJUjYJg1BUHF9MVts0fWbKPgWSMdLuM9Tn_n2WfXW%3DYyVhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:39 PM Tomas Pales  wrote:

>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I
>> think:
>>
>> http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt
>>
>
> Thanks. From the last two sentences it does seem that the parallel worlds
> don't arise by splitting at measurement from one world but already exist
> before measurement.
>

I find the differentiation of preexisting states a more palatable way to
think of splitting universes, which tends to raise questions that create
misunderstanding (like: where does the energy come from to make these other
worlds). The many minds interpretation seems to favor this view, but it
left open the question of where these infinite mind states came from.
Bruno's "many worlds of arithmetic" provides a plausible answer, in my
opinion.

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/d76887a3-d6d8-49d8-801a-b3f7f3923a45n%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/CA%2BBCJUjDXFmy8MROAFBms0e%3D12UnYE7zqrnWpmJWcoRxmqWqvA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

> So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really 
> be in? 
>
I don't select it; nature does.

> That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets entangled 
> with every different result and so is equally in each world.
>
I am conscious only of one world, so my consciousness is not in each world. 
Copies of me and their consciousnesses are in different worlds.

-- 
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/685fd90a-6744-4f37-af7e-5e84c49dff90n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a
probability different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?

You would seem to be looking for a branch counting
explanation of probability (self-locating uncertainty). But
there is no mechanism in Everett or the Schrodinger
equation to give anything other than a 50/50 split when only
two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
experience.

In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of
blue and red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a
random selection of a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that
the proportion of blue and red balls in the collection must be
50/50. Why would the proportion of branching worlds necessarily
be 50/50 if there are only two possible outcomes?

It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no
mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In
one world A happens. In the other world B happens. How does, for
example, a 16:9 ratio get implemented. There's nothing in
Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those numbers to one
world or the other. You can just make it an axiom. Or
equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can
invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability
measure. But all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by
just being pure Schroedinger equation evolution.

Brent

Is this question unique to MW?

Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in
explaining the Born rule?

Yes. They don't pretend that all you need is the Schroedinger equation
and linear evolution of the state. They explicitly recognize that you
need a probability interpretation to connect with observations.

Brent

I don't understand the problem that's unique to MW.

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/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%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/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%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/029a1053-cbc1-0070-30e0-ad085140200e%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no
mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In
one world A happens.  In the other world B happens.  How does, for
example, a 16:9 ratio get implemented.

For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, 
the proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 
16/9.


But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the 
split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.  Which then makes it just like 
Copenhagen.  Note that that the odds ratio 16:9 depends on the 
interaction with measuring instruments (some other measurement would 
yield different odds) and so it depends on at what point you stop 
considering superpositions and say "That's classical enough.  Let's just 
zero out the cross terms in the density matrix."  Something Heisenberg 
or Born could have done and essentially what Bohr said.  He realized 
that any measurement that people could agree on would have to be 
classical.  So he held that the Heisenberg cut could be anywhere close 
enough to consciousness to be quasi-classical.


Brent


  There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of
those numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an
axiom.  Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios,
you can invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent
probability measure.  But all that is extra stuff that MWI claims
to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger equation evolution.

In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting 
of branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball 
from a basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are 
infinitely many branches in MWI, different ways of counting give 
different probabilities, which means there are different possible 
probability measures, and so MWI needs an additional axiom that 
specifies the measure and thus the way of counting the branches. You 
say that the only possible (consistent) measure is the Born rule; in 
that case no additional axiom about the measure is needed (beyond the 
axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the branches must 
be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the Born rule.


--
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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%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/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 5:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:

On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell
mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> /I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The
nonlocality of the gravitation field and the locality of QFT
means that with spacetime formed by entanglements of quantum
states or fields, that locality and nonlocality may be
shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum
state or entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of
as a nonlocal process./

Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier
imagining many worlds.I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy,
one needs to go through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to
avoid the obvious conclusion that many worlds exist.

> /This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such
a shift. /

I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires
extra terms be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more
difficult to solve and do not improve its ability to make
predictions of observable events, in fact it makes the
predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or Many Worlds
it is not compatible with Special Relativity.

>/There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic,
Copenhagen Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are
ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds or Bohm interpretations. I think
there is no decision procedure that can ever tell us which of
these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then say
which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your
choice. I suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure
which of these is correct,/

I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The
Ghost In The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be
very difficult, but not impossible, to performthat could decide
between Copenhagen and Many Worlds; and the reason it's so
difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the reason is that the
conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws of
physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we
need a mind that uses quantum propertiesand algorithms.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate
one at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons
hit a photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate
till the very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has
detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various
photons went through. After each photon passes the slits, but
before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
document saying that it has observed each and every photon and
knows which slit each photon went through. It is very important
that the document does NOT say which slit a photon went through,
it only says that it went through one slit and only one slit and
the mind has knowledge of which one. There is a signed document
to this effect for every photon it shoots.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its
memory of which slit any of the photons went through; the only
part remaining in the universe is the document which states that
each photon went through one and only one slit and the mind (at
the time) knew which one. Now develop the photographic plate and
look at it. If you see interference bands then the Many World
interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional
quantum interpretation is correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the
results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer
the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except
one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the
Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into
one universe because information on which slit the various
photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
different from another, so when that was erased they became
identical again and merged, but their influence will still be
felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went through
slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through slot B only,
and that's what causes the interference pattern.

And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both
observed and yet quantum erased.  That's contrary to decoherence
theory of "observed" and assumes some magic "quantum
consciousness", hiding the problem behind a lack of definition of

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote:

>
> Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I 
> think:
>
> http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt
>

Thanks. From the last two sentences it does seem that the parallel worlds 
don't arise by splitting at measurement from one world but already exist 
before measurement.

-- 
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/d76887a3-d6d8-49d8-801a-b3f7f3923a45n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't
>> unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately
>> diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But then one needs to explain
>> what about those subspaces corresponds to the probabilities, or in other
>> words what does "probability" mean when they all exist?
>>
> Well, probability has always been about random selection of something from
> a collection of somethings. A classical example is random selection of a
> ball from a collection of balls. In MWI there is random selection of a
> world in which you find yourself. All the worlds exist just as all the
> balls in the collection exist.
>
>
> So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really
> be in?  That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets
> entangled with every different result and so is equally in each world.
>
Perhaps all apparent selections are illusory:

- The illusion of being in only one time (presentism)
- The illusion of being in only one branch (collapse)
- The illusion of being in only one universe (non-eternal inflation)
- The illusion of there being only one set of physical laws
(coincidence/design)
- The illusion of being in only one nervous system (closed individualism).

I suspect all are illusions: we exist in all times (eternalism), we exist
in all branches (mw), we exist in many universes (eternal inflation), we
exist under different physical laws (platonism), we exist in all nervous
systems (universalism/open individualism).

The big question then becomes one of measure: am I a typical observer? Why
am I not a maximally simple but more numerous conscious state aware of just
a single bit? Why am I not experiencing a conscious state of maximum
entropy (a visual field of random snow), of which there are far more
combinations?

Perhaps the two ways of counting information cancel out in some kind of
limit, like finding oneself in a country with a moderate population rather
than a country with a very high population, because there's a lot more
countries without a huge population. So perhaps we find ourselves, as
humans, because we are somewhere between more numerous ants and the more
possible states of Jupiter brains. Or perhaps we uploaded and created far
more virtual lives of intelligent beings than there ever were ants on the
original Earth.

(Credit to Russell Standish's "Theory of Nothing" for the country analogy
and ant question.)

Jason

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/58f6b113-d5a9-1e20-fcf7-4896f9e6a5a1%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/CA%2BBCJUiDMHyBcDZ4t84oU_19g2SuVLCL6D7w70AUfDHky%2B%3D9%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for 
> it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.  
> In the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get 
> implemented.
>
For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the 
proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9.

>   There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those 
> numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an axiom.  Or 
> equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can invoke 
> Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But all that 
> is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger 
> equation evolution.
>
In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting of 
branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball from a 
basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are infinitely many 
branches in MWI, different ways of counting give different probabilities, 
which means there are different possible probability measures, and so MWI 
needs an additional axiom that specifies the measure and thus the way of 
counting the branches. You say that the only possible (consistent) measure 
is the Born rule; in that case no additional axiom about the measure is 
needed (beyond the axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the 
branches must be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the 
Born rule.

-- 
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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability
>> different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?
>>
>> You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of
>> probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in
>> Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50
>> split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
>> experience.
>>
>
> In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue and
> red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection of
> a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red
> balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of
> branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible
> outcomes?
>
>
> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
> it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.
> In the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get
> implemented.  There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one
> of those numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an
> axiom.  Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can
> invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But
> all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure
> Schroedinger equation evolution.
>
> Brent
>
> Is this question unique to MW?

Do Copenhagen/GRW/QBism/Transactional/Bohm have any advantage(s) in
explaining the Born rule?

I don't understand the problem that's unique to MW.

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/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%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/CA%2BBCJUjA7u%2BF7R4qhjby%2BcBBYBZ2kirPCfTV6-oYk8tQf%2Bs6Lw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

Oh, I don't know if Schrodinger would sic his cat on me, or Wigner would sic 
his friend on me for such insolence? It may even be worthy of being a prayer as 
it describes reality? As a physicist you should not be shocked (yes of course 
appalled) that the peasants of the fields find some of your works 
intellectually and emotionally usable.  We glean the fields (electrodynamic or 
chromodynamic) for things to feed the mind and well as the belly. You should 
see, what we have done with Andrew Strominger and company's  Lectures on the 
Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory. Wait! Better not, because we 
all have our strengths and weaknesses. 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
released on April 1st)

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:56:38 AM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Our descendents will have to see how far they can push things, Bruno. That is, 
if they can push things, and if we can as a species encourage the machinery to 
benefit us? Machines could do this making enjoyable discoveries, and enjoyable 
innovations. We do this to make people have better lives just as meta-goal 
because it feels better, at least for me, but then, I am just a bourgeoise. For 
my attitude, theology is a mental app for people to use. Some people, 
especially, some women, seem to glean ideas about the big Platonic network in 
the sky, and it seems to work, or, perhaps, I am just easily tricked?  
Theologies are always welcome if they benefit people? Perhaps for some or many, 
the Schrodinger Equation can be a good substitute for a matra of The Lord's 
Prayer? 
I don't know how I'd pronounce it as a prayer, though?




Calling it a prayer is a bit of an insult.
LC 

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
released on April 1st)



On 14 Jun 2021, at 17:05, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
A wise idea to clear up the word clutter. New religions I hold we do not need. 
It's better to use science to upgrade them.

That the whole point. To bring back reason in theology, which is the 
fundamental science by definition, before we commit any ontological commitment, 
be it is a universe or in arithmetic, or whatever. That is what theology has 
been from Pythagorus and Parmenides ()500)  to Damascius (+500). 
Then we can see that the ideally sound universal+ (Löbian) machine have a rich 
mathematical theology, which is testable as it contains physics, and indeed 
QM-without-collapse confirms it strikingly well up to now, qualitatively and 
quantitatively.



 If the universe does indeed learn as proposed by the physicist, then that's a 
good thing.

That is impossible once we bet that learning is a mechanical procedure, like 
with Darwin. In that case the physical universe Is a statistical pattern 
emerging from the (sigma_1) number relations.



 Skeptic Michael Shermer paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, said: A sufficiently 
advanced alien intelligence is indistinguishable from God.” 



No machine can, indeed, distinguish an oracle/god (in Turing sense) from a 
machine more complex than themselves. But science is in prediction, using the 
simplest conceptual assumptions, not in any metaphysical certainties, despite 
some can exist (but have to remain private).
Bruno





-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Cc: mar...@ulb.ac.be 
Sent: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 10:21 am
Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
released on April 1st)

On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


> I am not saying we do not need theology,

Maybe you're not saying we don't need theology, but I certainly am. 
By the way, the post I'm responding to contained 14 iterations of quotes, 
that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of 
quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and that 
makes it a bit difficult to figure out who is saying what to who so I have 
removed them. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

yab
 



-- 
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/CAJPayv2u728c2V%3Dys689k%3Di6UkYZYLJcaSRfR4OkkOw3mnKD0g%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 4:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:07 AM Tomas Pales > wrote:



On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual
quantum coin tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing
because then the idea doesn't work -- there is no causal
connection between the experiments and the copies. The issue
then is how the Schrodinger equation generates all these copies.


I am wondering, is it really necessary that the split into copies
occurs at measurement? Would it not be possible that all the
copies of worlds already exist before the measurement, evolving in
the same way until the moment of measurement, and at the moment of
measurement their evolutions start to differ? Causality may be
just a regularity in the temporal sequence of states of a world
where a particular state of the world is logically derived from a
prior state of the world and from the regularity. But at the
moment of measurement this regularity is broken, which may just
mean that the state of the world after the measurement cannot be
logically derived from a prior state of the world and from a
regularity; still there may be a regularity on the level of the
multiverse in the way the particular worlds start to differ from
each other at the moment of measurement, and this regularity gives
proportions of different worlds after the measurement and thereby
probabilities that we exist in a particular world.



Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I 
think:


http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt 



Jason



Yes, that's more plausible interpretation since there must be myriad 
microscopic, but still classical, "splits" which make no difference to 
us.  Then the split on observation that we're discussing is just a 
division of this stream of classically equivalent worlds.  Julian 
Barbour wrote a book about this interpretation.  So his idea was that 
when there is a "measurement", something amplified to the classical 
level, a proportion of the stream of world's divides according to the 
Born rule.  But that requires that individual worlds go this way or that 
way probablistically and it's hard see how that's any improvement on 
Omnes' dictum, "It's a probablistic theory so one thing happens and the 
others don't."


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/1e114675-912d-4e48-4d97-e92d6dc9643a%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the
>> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed
>> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality
>> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or
>> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.*
>>
>
> Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining
> many worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go
> through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious
> conclusion that many worlds exist.
>
> > *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. *
>>
>
> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms
> be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve
> and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in
> fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or
> Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity.
>
>  > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds
>> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can
>> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then
>> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I
>> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is
>> correct,*
>>
>
> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The
> Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but
> not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many
> Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the
> reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits,
> but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went
> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one.
> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
> interpretation is correct.
>
> This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
> so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
> different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again
> and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous
> evidence that the photon went through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it
> went through slot B only, and that's what causes the interference pattern.
>
>
> And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both observed
> and yet quantum erased.  That's contrary to decoherence theory of
> "observed" and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the
> problem behind a lack of definition of consciousness.
>
> Brent
>
> You just need a quantum computer with enough qubits to run an AI. Run it
together with Shors algorithm and have "each AI" read a definite random
number from 0 to 2^n where n is the number of qubits needed to represent
the semiprime being fa

Re: The best video yet about January 6

Nada, Lawrence. There is a money line to be followed from the funders of the 
democratic party, to who gets elected prosecutors, who get to rule on whether 
arrests are valid, who get to decide on who stayed in jail at a time of plague, 
to who are the defense attorneys, all SPLC + now the New soviet minded ACLU, 
providing pro-bono services for the arrested, to calling arson as mostly 
peaceful from your dnc media, etc, ad nauseum. The protests and riots and arson 
against police shootings of black males are unplanned, but it is the reaction 
to such shootings that are obviously coordinated.This, then, is like former 
mayor, and Obama chief of staff's cogent remark, "never let a good crisis go to 
waste." For the rightwingers at the capital, it appears that nobody supported 
them, not even DJT,* but this is the typical repub reaction (elites) they look 
strictly out for their own asses. 
If there was a conspiracy to rob orange man at the ballot box, (which I have 
yet to see convincing evidence of), it surely wasn't the recipients' of 
corporate largesse, BLM +Antifa, but the boards of directors themselves. What 
motivation you ask? I would say China trade money, Orange man placed trade 
tariffs on China goods. The big corps wanted their China money back so did the 
dirty work. Did this happen in real life? Well, we need evidence presented, if 
true?
What of Joe's future with Chinese empower Xi? Well, even though his family took 
cash from Xi's CCP, I think he will be treated badly, not because he wants 
confrontation with Xi, but because Xi and his party wants it. It unites China 
behind the Party is why. As House Speaker (dem) Tip O'Neal once joked, 
"Politics is like making love with an 800 lb gorilla. You don't stop when you 
want to, you stop when the gorilla wants to." Thus, I fear for what Xi will do 
and how well the US will fare? Also. everyone should keep their eyes on the 
economy, energy supplies, especially inflation. This then, is what influences 
politics, and we all must dance whether we wish to or not, Like the Plague 
dancers of Europe, given Covid, is not entirely 
unrelated.https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/jul/05/bizarre-dance-epidemic-of-summer-1518-strasbourg

* Duly noted that DJT hasn't spoken about the Jan 6 rioters. 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

The demonstrations last summer were not a Democratic party coordinated set of 
events. They rather spontaneously happened on their own. To the extent there 
was rioting, which was not nearly as extensive as you seem to think, it was 
minor stuff compared to a coordinated attempt to overthrow Congress by a mob 
incited by t'Rump, where that mob had a measure of planning on the part of 
various right winged groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. 
LC
On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in democratic 
party run cities all of 2020. Your estimation of me carries no water because as 
enter into a time national and perhaps global crisis, I haven't the time for 
such minor things as meeting a democrats level of approval. As with Orange Man 
and his voters you and your fellows would do away with us, if and when you can. 
So you have already, as Dilbert cartoonist, Scott Adams have often said, 
"talking past the sell." I get where your are coming from but consider the 
"shock value," you seem to want, irrelevant. This becomes irrelevant as we 
slide into a national physical split, which I believe is possible and perhaps, 
inevitable. 
So as to not make your earnest reply of no value, I respond with an nice 
Youtube video concerning what seems to be a material advance in both resources 
and production. Enjoy. 
(non-political)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznXI8wrdag

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudb...@aol.com
Cc: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 6:11 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:

>> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events of 
>> January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
>> government:
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

> Laff of the day! 

If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

-- 
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/8d2e1024-de4b-4402-9cd8-6d3cf01fb52bn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything Lis

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:07 AM Tomas Pales  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>
>> But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum
>> coin tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea
>> doesn't work -- there is no causal connection between the experiments and
>> the copies. The issue then is how the Schrodinger equation generates all
>> these copies.
>
>
> I am wondering, is it really necessary that the split into copies occurs
> at measurement? Would it not be possible that all the copies of worlds
> already exist before the measurement, evolving in the same way until the
> moment of measurement, and at the moment of measurement their evolutions
> start to differ? Causality may be just a regularity in the temporal
> sequence of states of a world where a particular state of the world is
> logically derived from a prior state of the world and from the regularity.
> But at the moment of measurement this regularity is broken, which may just
> mean that the state of the world after the measurement cannot be logically
> derived from a prior state of the world and from a regularity; still there
> may be a regularity on the level of the multiverse in the way the
> particular worlds start to differ from each other at the moment of
> measurement, and this regularity gives proportions of different worlds
> after the measurement and thereby probabilities that we exist in a
> particular world.
>


Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I
think:

http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt

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/660d56c9-99c9-4f20-8245-31d1997399aan%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/CA%2BBCJUjHHFuOVZhVkeoENtj%2BmpJ23ZAKrX9Rhss40bGvK1429g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

You want us all to be nazis because you need us all to be nazis because you 
hate orange man. The dem voting base wants a dictatorship run by the boards of 
directors who run your woke corporations, who fund your democrats and and yeah, 
the reps too. My assertion is: We Agree On Nothing. has meaning What this means 
is that if we enter hard economic times, which your party will blame on trump 
and his voters,  it will likely cause a split, perhaps permanent, in the US? It 
will be exacerbated by political repression via, dem laws and practices of 
their executive branch. This is a guess on my part and have been wrong before. 
If things become severe in the US, I ask now, what happens if the trumpkins 
just walk away from the dem mix of incompetence + fascism? I would opt for the 
Gandhi response to the corporations and institutions. We will see if things go 
under, or not? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2021 6:57 am
Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:00 AM  wrote:

> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in democratic 
> party run cities all of 2020.

Mr. Potato Head, did you actually look at this video? 
How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

There is nothing, absolutely positively NOTHING, in all of American history 
that is comparable with the events of January 6, 2021 that are so well 
documented in this video; not even during the Civil War did a mob of traitors 
manage to carry the confederate flag into the US Capitol Building, but Trump's 
thugs did.  And I repeat the question I've been asking you over and over again 
but have yet to receive an answer: WHAT THE HELL DOES THE BLACK LIVES MATTERS 
PROTESTS HAVE TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP'S  COUP D'ETAT ATTEMPT?!

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
b835

-- 
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/21653.3031279.1625440494125%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:57 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't
>> unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately
>> diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But then one needs to explain
>> what about those subspaces corresponds to the probabilities, or in other
>> words what does "probability" mean when they all exist?
>>
> Well, probability has always been about random selection of something from
> a collection of somethings. A classical example is random selection of a
> ball from a collection of balls. In MWI there is random selection of a
> world in which you find yourself. All the worlds exist just as all the
> balls in the collection exist.
>
>
> So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really
> be in?  That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets
> entangled with every different result and so is equally in each world.
>


Brent, I see that you are not entirely opposed to the view that
self-locating uncertainty as an explanation of probabilities in MWI is
essentially dualistic in that it requires some identification of a unique
"self" to be in only one of the many worlds.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ0y9Z8stnLQ_cygkqaFkc5H87BTeUg_XLW6SGE620iPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:02 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the
>> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed
>> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality
>> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or
>> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.*
>>
>
> Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining
> many worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go
> through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious
> conclusion that many worlds exist.
>
> > *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. *
>>
>
> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms
> be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve
> and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in
> fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or
> Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity.
>
>  > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds
>> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can
>> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then
>> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I
>> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is
>> correct,*
>>
>
> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The
> Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but
> not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many
> Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the
> reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits,
> but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went
> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one.
> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
> interpretation is correct.
>


I think the buckyball experiment is relevant here. In a sense, it is an
actual implementation of a set-up rather like that Deutsch envisages. The
IR photons emitted when the buckyballs are heated give sufficient
resolution to tell the experimenter which slit the ball went through. As
long as this information exists in the world somewhere, no interference
pattern is seen. You can send the photons out into space, or you can run
them into the wall; but as long as they have been created and the
information not quantum erased, the information they carry is not lost --
only redistributed somewhat.

However, if you quantum erase the information (and I am not sure how one
would do this with IR photons) , then the interference pattern would
appear. Similar experiments have been done with polarized photons, and
delayed choice quantum erasure has been demonstrated.

Bruce



This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
> so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
> different from another, so when that was erased they became id

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:



On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they
aren't unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each
approximately diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But then
one needs to explain what about those subspaces corresponds to the
probabilities, or in other words what does "probability" mean when
they all exist?

Well, probability has always been about random selection of something 
from a collection of somethings. A classical example is random 
selection of a ball from a collection of balls. In MWI there is random 
selection of a world in which you find yourself. All the worlds exist 
just as all the balls in the collection exist.



So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to 
really be in?  That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness 
gets entangled with every different result and so is equally in each world.


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/58f6b113-d5a9-1e20-fcf7-4896f9e6a5a1%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a
probability different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?

You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of
probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no
mechanism in Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything
other than a 50/50 split when only two outcomes are possible. This
is wildly at variance with experience.

In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue
and red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random
selection of a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the
proportion of blue and red balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why
would the proportion of branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there
are only two possible outcomes?

It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A
happens. In the other world B happens. How does, for example, a 16:9
ratio get implemented. There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that
assigns one of those numbers to one world or the other. You can just
make it an axiom. Or equivalently, if you can show these are odds
ratios, you can invoke Gleason's theorem as the only consistent
probability measure. But all that is extra stuff that MWI claims to
avoid by just being pure Schroedinger equation evolution.

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/44aceed9-5408-9dc0-ebcb-436765a7df23%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> An intelligent quantum computer is perfectly capable of creating a
>> document specifying that at a certain time it had information in its memory
>> banks that indicated which slot a photon went through but not actually
>> mentioning which slot it was,
>
>
>
> *> That's the step that I doubt can be implemented within QM.  Of course
> it can record quasi-classically (so it can be read out) every time it
> detects a which-way and it can maintain a count of them.  But it isn't
> conscious of the which-way values, only that they were counted.*
>
It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but as for
consciousness, how did you determine that it was not conscious? For that
matter how did you determine that I am conscious? But let's get out of the
consciousness quagmire for a moment so I can ask you a question, leaving
behind the interpretation of the experiment concentrating only on its
results, if it was actually performed as described do you think
interference bands would be on that photographic plate or would there be no
such bands? I would bet money the bands would be there on that plate even
though there's no longer any which way information remaining. So, what
would you put your money on, bands or no bands?

 >
> *So the interference pattern showing up at the end doesn't do anything to
> invalidate Copenhagen or similar interpretations.*
>

If interference bands are on that photographic plate then either Many
Worlds is correct or a rock is just as likely to be conscious as one of
your fellow human beings because intelligent behavior would tell you
nothing about consciousness. But if there are no bands I would immediately
concede and say Many Worlds must be wrong. What outcome would make you
concede?

> The entire point of this experiment is to determine if conscious stuff
>> operates according to the same laws of physics as non-conscious stuff, I'm
>> betting that they do.
>
>

>* So am I.  Conscious stuff works by **decohering quantum superpositions*


Quantum mechanics is mysterious and consciousness is mysterious, but other
than that I don't think the two have anything to do with each other. But
even if I'm wrong and they do it wouldn't make any difference in this case
because an intelligent quantum computer is certainly capable of decohering
quantum superpositions.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


gbty

-- 
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/CAJPayv14v9Lg0j2sD4dE-8xmXTNKkNfxEMr5iJH%2BxoWZofOrHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:

>> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The
Ghost In The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would
be very difficult, but not impossible, to performthat could
decide between Copenhagen and Many Worlds; and the reason it's
so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the reason is that the
conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws
of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
right we need a mind that uses quantum propertiesand
algorithms. An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at
a metal plate one at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and
then the photons hit a photographic plate. Nobody looks at the
photographic plate till the very end of the experiment. The
quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
slit the various photons went through. After each photon
passes the slits,but before they hit the photographic
plate,the quantum mind signs a document saying that it has
observed each and every photon and knows which slit each
photon went through. It is very important that the document
does NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says
that itwent through one slit and only one slit and the mind
has knowledge of which one. There is a signed document to this
effect for every photon it shoots.Now the mind uses quantum
erasure to completely destroy its memory of which slit any of
the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
universe is the document which states that each photon went
through one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew
which one. Now develop the photographic plate and look at it.
If you see interference bands then the Many World
interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference
bands then there are no worlds but this one and the
conventional quantum interpretation is correct.This works
because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one
disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the
Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into
one universe because information on which slit the various
photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
different from another, so when that was erased they became
identical again and merged, but their influence will still be
felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went
through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through
slot B only, and that's what causes the interference pattern.

/> And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be
both observed and yet quantum erased. That's contrary to
decoherence theory of "observed"/

I don't know what you're talking about. An intelligent quantum 
computer is perfectly capable of creating a document specifying that 
at a certain time it had information in its memory banks that 
indicated which slot a photon went through but not actually mentioning 
which slot it was,

That's the step that I doubt can be implemented within QM.  Of course it 
can record quasi-classically (so it can be read out) every time it 
detects a which-way and it can maintain a count of them.  But it isn't 
conscious of the which-way values, only that they were counted.  So the 
interference pattern showing up at the end doesn't do anything to 
invalidate Copenhagen or similar interpretations.

and at a later time a quantum computer is also capable of using 
quantum erasure to remove that which way information from its memory 
banks so there  no longer exists information anywhere about which slit 
the photon went through, although there is still knowledge that at one 
time that information was in its memory banks.

>///and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the
problem behind a lack of definition of consciousness./

Wow, asenigmatic and bazaar as your first remark was, this one is even 
more so! The entire point of this experiment is to determine if 
conscious stuff operates according to the same laws of physics as 
non-conscious stuff, I'm betting that they do.

So am I.  Conscious stuff works by decohering quantum superpositions.  
That's why you're never conscious of being in the trillions of 
multiple-worlds you suppose exist.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 

lts9

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In
>> The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult,
>> but not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and
>> Many Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault,
>> the reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
>> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
>> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.  An
>> intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a time
>> that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
>> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
>> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
>> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits
>> , but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
>> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
>> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
>> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went
>> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one.
>> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots. Now
>> the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of which
>> slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
>> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
>> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
>> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
>> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
>> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
>> interpretation is correct. This works because in the Copenhagen
>> interpretation when the results of a measurement enters the consciousness
>> of an observer the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes
>> except one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the
>> Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one universe
>> because information on which slit the various photons went through was the
>> only thing that made one universe different from another, so when that was
>> erased they became identical again and merged, but their influence will
>> still be felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went through
>> slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through slot B only, and that's
>> what causes the interference pattern.
>
>

*>  And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both
> observed and yet quantum erased. That's contrary to decoherence theory of
> "observed"*
>

I don't know what you're talking about. An intelligent quantum computer is
perfectly capable of creating a document specifying that at a certain time
it had information in its memory banks that indicated which slot a photon
went through but not actually mentioning which slot it was, and at a later
time a quantum computer is also capable of using quantum erasure to remove
that which way information from its memory banks so there  no longer exists
information anywhere about which slit the photon went through, although
there is still knowledge that at one time that information was in its
memory banks.
>
> > *and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the problem
> behind a lack of definition of consciousness.*
>
Wow, as enigmatic and bazaar as your first remark was, this one is even
more so! The entire point of this experiment is to determine if conscious
stuff operates according to the same laws of physics as non-conscious
stuff, I'm betting that they do.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lts9

-- 
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/CAJPayv2dpEVC%2BPwioAm9K%3D_Wsc4F5EiBCLrv8%3DY-RQ%3DxzQEwuw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:

> /I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of
the gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with
spacetime formed by entanglements of quantum states or fields,
that locality and nonlocality may be shifted around. Decoherence
and the transition of a quantum state or entanglement to a
decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process./

Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining 
many worlds.I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go 
through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious 
conclusion that many worlds exist.

> /This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a
shift. /

I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra 
terms be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult 
to solve and do not improve its ability to make predictions of 
observable events, in fact it makes the predictions worse because 
unlike Dirac's Equation or Many Worlds it is not compatible with 
Special Relativity.

>/There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic,
Copenhagen Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic
such as Many Worlds or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no
decision procedure that can ever tell us which of these sets
quantum physics sets within. I would then say which ever one of
these you work with is a matter of your choice. I suspect there is
no way we can ever know for sure which of these is correct,/

I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In 
The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very 
difficult, but not impossible, to performthat could decide between 
Copenhagen and Many Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not 
Many Worlds fault, the reason is that the conventional view says 
conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many Worlds says 
they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum 
propertiesand algorithms.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at 
a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each 
slit so it knows which slit the various photons went through. After 
each photon passes the slits, but before they hit the photographic 
plate, the quantum mind signs a document saying that it has observed 
each and every photon and knows which slit each photon went through. 
It is very important that the document does NOT say which slit a 
photon went through, it only says that it went through one slit and 
only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. There is a 
signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in 
the universe is the document which states that each photon went 
through one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which 
one. Now develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see 
interference bands then the Many World interpretation is correct. If 
you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but this 
one and the conventional quantum interpretation is correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results 
of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave 
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear 
without a trace so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model 
all the other worlds will converge back into one universe because 
information on which slit the various photons went through was the 
only thing that made one universe different from another, so when that 
was erased they became identical again and merged, but their influence 
will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went 
through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through slot B 
only, and that's what causes the interference pattern.

And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both 
observed and yet quantum erased.  That's contrary to decoherence theory 
of "observed" and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the 
problem behind a lack of definition of consciousness.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 

8b4m

--
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

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

2021-07-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/4/2021 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra wrote:

Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely that
information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means that
a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical object,
because the information that describes the conscious experience will always be
less detailed than the information present in the exact physical description of
an object such a brain. There are always going to be a very large self
localization ambiguity due to the large number of different possible brain
states that would generate exactly the same conscious experience. So, given
whatever conscious experience the agent has, the agent could be in a very large
number of physically distinct states.

The simpler the brain and the algorithm implemented by the brain, the larger
this self-localization ambiguity becomes because smaller algorithms contain
less detailed information. Our conscious experiences localizes us very
precisely on an Earth-like planet in a solar system that is very similar to the
one we think we live in. But the fly walking on the wall of the room I'm in
right now may have some conscious experience that is exactly identical to that
of another fly walking on the wall of another house in another country 600
years ago or on some rock in a cave 35 million year ago.

The conscious experience of the fly I see on the all is therefore not located
in the particular fly I'm observing.

This seems to equate "a conscious experience" with "an algorithm". But
an algortihm is an extended thing that in general has branches
representing counterfactuals.

This is i.m.o. the key thing you get from identifying consciousness with
information, it makes the multiverse an essential ingredient of consciousness.
This resolves paradoxes you get in thought experiments where you consider
simulating a brain in a virtual world and then argue that since the simulation
is deterministic, you could replace the actual computer doing the computations
by a device playing a recording of the physical brain states. This argument
breaks down if you take into account the self-localization ambiguity

What is this "self" of which you speak?

Brent

and consider that this multiverse aspect is an essential part of consciousness
due to counterfactuals necessary to define the algorithm being realized, which
is impossible in a deterministic single-world setting.

OK. Not only true, but it makes physics into a branch of mathematical logic,
partially embedded in arithmetic (and totally embedded in the semantic of
arithmetic, which of course cannot be purely arithmetical, as the machine
understand already).

I got the many-dreams, or many histories of the physical reality from the many
computations in arithmetic well before I discovered Everett. Until that moment
I was still thinking that QM was a threat on Mechanism, but of course it is
only the wave collapse postulate which is contradictory with Mechanism.

We cannot make a computation disappear like we cannot make a number disappear…

Bruno

Saibal

On 18-06-2021 20:46, Jason Resch wrote:

In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to
date, or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them
wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement?
I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure
which one or which combination is right. For example:
Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in
some combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or
if there are other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind
consciousness I might have missed.
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%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%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/bd53588153f2debae241dbb41e48b60a%40zonnet.nl.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra
>> terms be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to
>> solve and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable
>> events, in fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's 
>> Equation
>> or Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity.
>>
>
> > *GRW may simply be incomplete.*
>

If and when GRW is ever completed maybe it can compete with Many Worlds,
but not now.

>> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In
>> The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult,
>> but not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and
>> Many Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault,
>> the reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
>> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
>> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.  An
>> intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a time
>> that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
>> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
>> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
>> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits
>> , but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
>> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
>> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
>> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went
>> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one.
>> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots. Now
>> the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of which
>> slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
>> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
>> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
>> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
>> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
>> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
>> interpretation is correct. This works because in the Copenhagen
>> interpretation when the results of a measurement enters the consciousness
>> of an observer the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes
>> except one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the
>> Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one universe
>> because information on which slit the various photons went through was the
>> only thing that made one universe different from another, so when that was
>> erased they became identical again and merged, but their influence will
>> still be felt, you'll see ambiguous evidence that the photon went through
>> slot A only and ambiguous evidence it went through slot B only, and that's
>> what causes the interference pattern.
>>
>
> *> The only way I can think this experiment would work is if these
> observers are themselves obeying Schrodinger equation. This then may set up
> a sort of Wigner's friend problem. The interference fringes might be
> observed by different observers to be entirely different. This restores
> locality, but reality or objectivity has been abandoned. In that setting I
> am not sure the MWI is that clearly demonstrated.*
>

If after a trillion photons in not one of them do you fail to see an
interference
band then it would be about as hard to make the argument that Many Worlds
is still wrong as to make the argument that it was still a fair coin even
after I see you flip it 1 trillion times and it come out heads every single
time.  It's possible but, to put it mildly, rather unlikely.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

oo76

-- 
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/CAJPayv2vXJUFuEdF7u%2B6_E4WpZ_CB6bwohBiwZ5jZ%3Dd7qm2ArA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:56:38 AM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Our descendents will have to see how far they can push things, Bruno. That 
> is, if they can push things, and if we can as a species encourage the 
> machinery to benefit us? Machines could do this making enjoyable 
> discoveries, and enjoyable innovations. We do this to make people have 
> better lives just as meta-goal because it feels better, at least for me, 
> but then, I am just a bourgeoise. For my attitude, theology is a mental app 
> for people to use. Some people, especially, some women, seem to glean ideas 
> about the big Platonic network in the sky, and it seems to work, or, 
> perhaps, I am just easily tricked?  Theologies are always welcome if they 
> benefit people? Perhaps for some or many, the Schrodinger Equation can be a 
> good substitute for a matra of The Lord's Prayer? [image: \hat{H} \Psi=E 
> \Psi] 
>
> I don't know how I'd pronounce it as a prayer, though?
>
>
>
Calling it a prayer is a bit of an insult.

LC
 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 7:43 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns 
> (not released on April 1st)
>
>
> On 14 Jun 2021, at 17:05, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> A wise idea to clear up the word clutter. New religions I hold we do not 
> need. It's better to use science to upgrade them.
>
>
> That the whole point. To bring back reason in theology, which is the 
> fundamental science by definition, before we commit any ontological 
> commitment, be it is a universe or in arithmetic, or whatever. That is what 
> theology has been from Pythagorus and Parmenides ()500)  to Damascius 
> (+500). 
>
> Then we can see that the ideally sound universal+ (Löbian) machine have a 
> rich mathematical theology, which is testable as it contains physics, and 
> indeed QM-without-collapse confirms it strikingly well up to now, 
> qualitatively and quantitatively.
>
>
>
> If the universe does indeed learn as proposed by the physicist, then 
> that's a good thing.
>
>
> That is impossible once we bet that learning is a mechanical procedure, 
> like with Darwin. In that case the physical universe Is a statistical 
> pattern emerging from the (sigma_1) number relations.
>
>
>
> Skeptic Michael Shermer paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, said: A 
> sufficiently advanced alien intelligence is indistinguishable from God.” 
>
>
>
> No machine can, indeed, distinguish an oracle/god (in Turing sense) from a 
> machine more complex than themselves. But science is in prediction, using 
> the simplest conceptual assumptions, not in any metaphysical certainties, 
> despite some can exist (but have to remain private).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Cc: mar...@ulb.ac.be 
> Sent: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 10:21 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns 
> (not released on April 1st)
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > *I am not saying we do not need theology,*
>
>
> Maybe you're not saying we don't need theology, but I certainly am. 
>
> By the way, the post I'm responding to contained 14 iterations of quotes, 
> that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and 
> that makes it a bit difficult to figure out who is saying what to who so I 
> have removed them. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> yab
>
>  
>
>
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv2u728c2V%3Dys689k%3Di6UkYZYLJcaSRfR4OkkOw3mnKD0g%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/312723948.4982996.1623683125051%40mail.yahoo.com
>  
> .
>  
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscrib

Re: The best video yet about January 6

The demonstrations last summer were not a Democratic party coordinated set 
of events. They rather spontaneously happened on their own. To the extent 
there was rioting, which was not nearly as extensive as you seem to think, 
it was minor stuff compared to a coordinated attempt to overthrow Congress 
by a mob incited by t'Rump, where that mob had a measure of planning on the 
part of various right winged groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath 
Keepers. 

LC

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in 
> democratic party run cities all of 2020. Your estimation of me carries no 
> water because as enter into a time national and perhaps global crisis, I 
> haven't the time for such minor things as meeting a democrats level of 
> approval. As with Orange Man and his voters you and your fellows would do 
> away with us, if and when you can. So you have already, as Dilbert 
> cartoonist, Scott Adams have often said, "talking past the sell." I get 
> where your are coming from but consider the "shock value," you seem to 
> want, irrelevant. This becomes irrelevant as we slide into a national 
> physical split, which I believe is possible and perhaps, inevitable.  
>
> So as to not make your earnest reply of no value, I respond with an nice 
> Youtube video concerning what seems to be a material advance in both 
> resources and production. Enjoy. (non-political)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznXI8wrdag
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: spudb...@aol.com
> Cc: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 6:11 am
> Subject: Re: The best video yet about January 6
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:26 PM  wrote:
>
> >> This is BY FAR  the best video I've yet seen that documents the events 
> of January 6, minute by minute, as Trump's thugs attempt to take over the 
> government:
> How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol 
> 
>
>
> *> Laff of the day! *
>
>
> If you find that video to be funny then you are a very sick man. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
>
>

-- 
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/8d2e1024-de4b-4402-9cd8-6d3cf01fb52bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>  
>
>> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the 
>> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed 
>> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality 
>> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or 
>> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.*
>>
>
> Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining 
> many worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go 
> through a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious 
> conclusion that many worlds exist.
>
> > *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. *
>>
>
> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms 
> be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve 
> and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in 
> fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or 
> Many Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity. 
>

GRW may simply be incomplete. What if this is a phenomenology for the 
conversion of quantum bits, which have unitary evolution or are unital, 
into Jordan algebraic forms of information. Unitary evolution with U(t) = 
e^{-iHt/ħ}, obeys U_{tt} = UU^†U , which is a form of the geodesic 
deviation equation. The Jordan algebra is instead of commutators U•V= ½(UV 
+ VU), and the generators are real valued such as e^{-E/kT}. These algebras 
include the exceptional algebras, in particular the octonions of real 
valued elements. The switch between then is then an intertwiner  e^{-iHt/ħ} 
↔ e^{-E/kT}. 

I am not making a complete pitch for GRW, but I think in some ways it may 
not be much worse that MWI. The collapse mechanism may simply be a way that 
quantum bits transform into another form. Maybe this is a generalization of 
quantum mechanics.
 

>
>  > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen 
>> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds 
>> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can 
>> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then 
>> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I 
>> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is 
>> correct,*
>>
>
> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The 
> Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but 
> not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many 
> Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the 
> reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey 
> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's 
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.  
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a 
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic 
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the 
> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which 
> slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits, 
> but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a 
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which 
> slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does 
> NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went 
> through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. 
> There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the 
> universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and 
> only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the 
> photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the 
> Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands 
> then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum 
> interpretation is correct.
>
> This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a 
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function 
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace 
> so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds 
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the 
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe 
> different from another, so when that was era

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:46:39 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote:

> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, 
> or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them 
> wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement?
>
> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure 
> which one or which combination is right.  For example:
>
> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
>

I don't know if self-reference in the sense of Godel sentences is relevant 
to consciousness but I would say that self-reference in the sense of 
intrinsic identity of an object explains qualitative properties of 
consciousness (qualia). I imagine that every object has two kinds of 
identity: intrinsic identity (something that the object is in itself) and 
extrinsic identity (relations of the object to all other objects). 
Intrinsic identity is something qualitative (non-relational), a quality 
that stands in relations to other qualities, so it seems like a natural 
candidate for the qualitative properties of consciousness. All relations 
are instances of the similarity relation (similarities between qualities 
arising from common and different properties of the qualities), of which a 
particular kind of relation deserves a special mention: the composition 
relation, also known as the set membership relation in set theory, or the 
relation between a whole and its part (or between a combination of objects 
and an object in the combination), which gives rise to a special kind of 
relational identity of an object: the compositional identity, which is 
constituted by the relations of the object to its parts (in other words, it 
is the internal structure of the object - not to be confused with the 
intrinsic identity of the object, which is a non-structural quality!). Set 
theory describes the compositional identity of all possible composite 
objects down to non-composite objects (instances of the empty set).

Since all objects have an intrinsic identity, this is a panpsychist view 
but it seems important to differentiate between different levels or 
intensities of consciousness.

> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
>

Study of neural correlates of consciousness suggests that the level or 
intensity of consciousness of an object depends on the complexity of the 
object's structure. There are two basic approaches to the definition of 
complexity: "disorganized" complexity (which is high in objects that have 
many different and independent (random) parts) and "organized" complexity 
(which is high in objects that have many different but also dependent 
(integrated) parts). It is the organized complexity in a dynamic form that 
seems important for the level of consciousness. Tononi's integrated 
information theory is based on such organized complexity though I don't 
know if his particular specification of the complexity is correct. 

> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
>

>From the evolutionary perspective it seems important for an organism to be 
able to create internal representations of external objects on different 
levels of composition of reality. Such representations reflect both the 
diversity and regularities of reality and need to be properly integrated to 
have a unified, coordinated influence on the organism's behavior. So the 
organized complexity of the organism's representations seems to be related 
to its functionality. 

-- 
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/cdb10702-4479-4089-b0c0-2d145de35efdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the
> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed
> by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and nonlocality
> may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a quantum state or
> entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a nonlocal process.*
>

Maybe the above can be imagined, but it's a whole lot easier imagining many
worlds. I keep thinking of epicycles in astronomy, one needs to go through
a lot of strenuous mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion that
many worlds exist.

> *This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is such a shift. *
>

I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra terms
be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to solve
and do not improve its ability to make predictions of observable events, in
fact it makes the predictions worse because unlike Dirac's Equation or Many
Worlds it is not compatible with Special Relativity.

 > *There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen
> Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds
> or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can
> ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then
> say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I
> suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is
> correct,*
>

I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The
Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but
not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many
Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the
reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey
different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's
right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows which
slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the slits,
but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs a
document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows which
slit each photon went through. It is very important that the document does
NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that it went through
one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. There
is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shoots.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of which
slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in the
universe is the document which states that each photon went through one and
only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the
photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the
Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands
then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum
interpretation is correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds
will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again
and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous
evidence that the photon went through slot A only and ambiguous evidence it
went through slot B only, and that's what causes the interference pattern.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8b4m

-- 
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/CAJPayv2UfTu-%2BCBVUH_Zjt%3DpwDxRWMr0hBhQbtYvgum32iz5XA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:30:08 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> *> Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the 
>> probability?*
>>
>
> With a few caveats, which I spelled out previously, you already know I 
> do.  I said a few days ago:  
>
> "*If Everett is right and every change no matter how small causes the 
> universe to split, then there must be some changes to my brain that are so 
> small (one neutron in one neuron moving one Planck length to the left ) 
> that they cause no change in conscious experience and do not degrade the 
> memory of being John K Clark yesterday. Therefore there must be an 
> astronomical number to an astronomical power of John K Clarks all living in 
> different, very very slightly different, worlds. The number would be HUGE 
> but it would still be finite, so the number of John K Clarks that see you 
> flip a fair coin and come up heads 5 times in a row must be twice as large 
> as the number of times he sees you do it 6 times, but there would still be 
> a few that see him do it 100 times, maybe 1000 or even more*."  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> xq22
>

The MWI interpretation has a property that some think is a problem and 
others may think is a feature. This branching of quantum paths, which is 
just a local sort of frame dragging along a subset of paths according to 
the subjective and local perception of observers, occurs in a nonlocal 
manner. Where does the actual branching occur? I would say this is a 
feature, but I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality 
of the gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime 
formed by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that locality and 
nonlocality may be shifted around. Decoherence and the transition of a 
quantum state or entanglement to a decoherent set may be thought of as a 
nonlocal process. This may be worked so the objective collapse in GRW is 
such a shift. 

This Yggdrasil branching of quantum states, which in a global context does 
not really occur, is a local process that occurs within a local frame 
dragging in state space. This in principle happens throughout the entire 
universe, where this is nonlocal in a spatial sense or any frame of 
simultaneity. In QFT we have Wightman conditions of commutating field 
amplitudes on spatial surfaces. There is then an interplay of locality of 
fields and nonlocality of quantum states or waves. There are deep things to 
consider here. Whether one works with MWI branching or with objective 
collapse ideas there are matters to consider of some depth. I would not 
select how to think about this based on one's objection to this vast 
branching of quantum states.

 There are quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic, Copenhagen 
Interpretation, Qubism etc and those that are ψ-ontic such as Many Worlds 
or Bohm interpretations. I think there is no decision procedure that can 
ever tell us which of these sets quantum physics sets within. I would then 
say which ever one of these you work with is a matter of your choice. I 
suspect there is no way we can ever know for sure which of these is correct,

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e70761f0-c14e-47e8-9390-92d3fde4afcen%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

>
> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability 
> different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?
>
> You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of 
> probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in 
> Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50 
> split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with 
> experience.
>

In the classical example with balls you may have a collection of blue and 
red balls so there are only two possible outcomes of a random selection of 
a ball: blue and red. This doesn't mean that the proportion of blue and red 
balls in the collection must be 50/50. Why would the proportion of 
branching worlds necessarily be 50/50 if there are only two possible 
outcomes?

-- 
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/2269f8ff-0d6d-406d-b559-68aa1c5bf90en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:

> But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum coin 
> tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea 
> doesn't work -- there is no causal connection between the experiments and 
> the copies. The issue then is how the Schrodinger equation generates all 
> these copies.

I am wondering, is it really necessary that the split into copies occurs at 
measurement? Would it not be possible that all the copies of worlds already 
exist before the measurement, evolving in the same way until the moment of 
measurement, and at the moment of measurement their evolutions start to 
differ? Causality may be just a regularity in the temporal sequence of 
states of a world where a particular state of the world is logically 
derived from a prior state of the world and from the regularity. But at the 
moment of measurement this regularity is broken, which may just mean that 
the state of the world after the measurement cannot be logically derived 
from a prior state of the world and from a regularity; still there may be a 
regularity on the level of the multiverse in the way the particular worlds 
start to differ from each other at the moment of measurement, and this 
regularity gives proportions of different worlds after the measurement and 
thereby probabilities that we exist in a particular world.

-- 
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/660d56c9-99c9-4f20-8245-31d1997399aan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 16:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Suppose there is an AI that behaves more intelligently than the most 
> intelligent human who ever lived, however when the machine is opened up to 
> see how this intelligence is actually achieved one consciousness theory 
> doesn't like what it sees and concludes that despite its great intelligence 
> it is not conscious, but a rival consciousness theory does like what it sees 
> and concludes it is conscious. Both theories can't be right although both 
> could be wrong, so how on earth could you ever determine which, if any, of 
> the 2 consciousness theories are correct?

A consciousness theory has no value if it does not make testable prediction. 
But that is the case for the theory of consciousness brought by the universal 
machine/number in arithmetic. They give the logic of the observable, and indeed 
until now that fits with quantum logic.

The mechanist  brain-mind identity theory would be confirmed if Bohm’s hidden 
variable theory was true, or if we could find an evidence that the physical 
cosmos is unique, or that Newton physics was the only correct theory, etc. But 
quantum mechanics saved Mechanism here, and its canonical theory of 
consciousness (defined as a truth that no machine can miss, nor prove, nor 
define without using the notion of truth, immediatey knowable, indubitable, 
etc.). 
Consciousness is “just” a semantical fixed point, invariant for all universal 
machines. Without the induction axioms, that consciousness is highly dissociate 
from any computation, from the machine perspective. With the induction axioms, 
the machine get Löbian (and consciousnesss becomes basically described by 
Grzegorczyk formula 
[]([](p->[]p) -> p) -> p

Bruno

> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> qno
> yrm
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv241V2Kw2L%3DsUUGrFrhc8684TGzi%3DRC_yHm-_1rez%2BC_w%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/EF619D6E-7EAC-4190-A745-2CA78A65BE4A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:30 PM Tomas Pales  wrote:

> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't
>> unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately
>> diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But then one needs to explain
>> what about those subspaces corresponds to the probabilities, or in other
>> words what does "probability" mean when they all exist?
>>
> Well, probability has always been about random selection of something from
> a collection of somethings. A classical example is random selection of a
> ball from a collection of balls. In MWI there is random selection of a
> world in which you find yourself. All the worlds exist just as all the
> balls in the collection exist.
>


And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability
different from 0.5 for each possible outcome?

You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of
probability (self-locating uncertainty). But there is no mechanism in
Everett or the Schrodinger equation to give anything other than a 50/50
split when only two outcomes are possible. This is wildly at variance with
experience.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQry7mux22d_wPh3S5wZEYoX_WsW%3DSoNGsKEvoTv6O8Yw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?



> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra  wrote:
> 
> Information is the key.  Conscious agents are defined by precisely that 
> information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means 
> that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical 
> object, because the information that describes the conscious experience will 
> always be less detailed than the information present in the exact physical 
> description of an object such a brain. There are always going to be a very 
> large self localization ambiguity due to the large number of different 
> possible brain states that would generate exactly the same conscious 
> experience. So, given whatever conscious experience the agent has, the agent 
> could be in a very large number of physically distinct states.
> 
> The simpler the brain and the algorithm implemented by the brain, the larger 
> this self-localization ambiguity becomes because smaller algorithms contain 
> less detailed information. Our conscious experiences localizes us very 
> precisely on an Earth-like planet in a solar system that is very similar to 
> the one we think we live in. But the fly walking on the wall of the room I'm 
> in right now may have some conscious experience that is exactly identical to 
> that of another fly walking on the wall of another house in another country 
> 600 years ago or on some rock in a cave 35 million year ago.
> 
> The conscious experience of the fly I see on the all is therefore not located 
> in the particular fly I'm observing. This is i.m.o. the key thing you get 
> from identifying consciousness with information, it makes the multiverse an 
> essential ingredient of consciousness. This resolves paradoxes you get in 
> thought experiments where you consider simulating a brain in a virtual world 
> and then argue that since the simulation is deterministic, you could replace 
> the actual computer doing the computations by a device playing a recording of 
> the physical brain states. This argument breaks down if you take into account 
> the self-localization ambiguity and consider that this multiverse aspect is 
> an essential part of consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to define 
> the algorithm being realized, which is impossible in a deterministic 
> single-world setting.

OK. Not only true, but it makes physics into a branch of mathematical logic, 
partially embedded in arithmetic  (and totally embedded in the semantic of 
arithmetic, which of course cannot be purely arithmetical, as the machine 
understand already).

I got the many-dreams, or many histories of the physical reality from the many 
computations in arithmetic well before I discovered Everett. Until that moment 
I was still thinking that QM was a threat on Mechanism, but of course it is 
only the wave collapse postulate which is contradictory with Mechanism. 

We cannot make a computation disappear like we cannot make a number disappear…

Bruno


> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> On 18-06-2021 20:46, Jason Resch wrote:
>> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to
>> date, or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them
>> wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement?
>> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure
>> which one or which combination is right.  For example:
>> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
>> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
>> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
>> To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in
>> some combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or
>> if there are other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind
>> consciousness I might have missed.
>> 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%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com
>> [1].
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%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/bd53588153f2debae241dbb41e48b60a%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?


> On 19 Jun 2021, at 02:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm most with Dennett.  I see consciousness as having several different 
> levels, which are also different levels of self-reference.  

Different modes, yes (“level” is already used to describe the Doctor(s coding 
description of my brain).

The 8 main modes are given by 

p
[]p (which gives two modes as they split on proof/truth)
[]p & p
[]p & <>t (idem)
[]p & <>t & p (idem)

P is for any partial computable proposition (sigma_1)
[]p is for Gödel’s beweisbar predicate.<>p abbreviates ~[]~p.



> At the lowest level even bacteria recognize (in the functional/operational 
> sense) a distinction between "me" and "everything else".  A little above 
> that, some that are motile also sense chemical gradients and can move toward 
> food.  So they distinguish "better else" from "worse else".  At a higher 
> level, animals and plants with sensors know more about their surroundings.  
> Animals know a certain amount of geometry and are aware of their place in the 
> world.  How close or far things are.  Some animals, mostly those with eyes, 
> employ foresight and planning in which they forsee outcomes for themselves.  
> They can think of themselves in relation to other animals.  More advanced 
> social animals are aware of their social status.  Humans, perhaps thru the 
> medium of language, have a theory of mind, i.e. they can think about what 
> other people think and attribute agency to them (and to other things) as part 
> of their planning.  The conscious part of all this awareness is essentially 
> that which is processed as language and image; ultimately only a small part.

All universal machine believing in enough induction axiom can reason as fully 
as logically possible about themselves, and they all converge toward the same 
theology, as far as they remain arithmetically sound. The virtual body (third 
person self-reference) propositional logics are given given by G1 and G1*, the 
soul (the one conscious) is given by S4Grz1, the immediate sensation’s logic 
(qualia) is given by Z1* (the true components of the logic of []p & <>t & p.

Now I do think that much more animal have that self-consciousness level, but 
can hardly told us as they lack the language. Of course here I am speculating.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> On 6/18/2021 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or 
>> who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly 
>> or do you find points if disagreement?
>> 
>> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which 
>> one or which combination is right.  For example:
>> 
>> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
>> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
>> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
>> 
>> To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in some 
>> combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or if there are 
>> other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind consciousness I might have 
>> missed.
>> 
>> 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%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%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/cdc372c6-2579-fa64-2a26-bf8c1ce33c56%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/B559164C-7EC5-4465-93F6-84F3A6DA7F46%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?



On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't 
> unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately 
> diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But then one needs to explain 
> what about those subspaces corresponds to the probabilities, or in other 
> words what does "probability" mean when they all exist?
>
Well, probability has always been about random selection of something from 
a collection of somethings. A classical example is random selection of a 
ball from a collection of balls. In MWI there is random selection of a 
world in which you find yourself. All the worlds exist just as all the 
balls in the collection exist.



-- 
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/7e30b077-a069-41db-8109-7dc8c77c5fb7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 18 Jun 2021, at 20:46, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or 
> who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly 
> or do you find points if disagreement?
> 
> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which 
> one or which combination is right.  For example:
> 
> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key

Hofstadter is very good including on Gödel, which is rare for a phsyicist (cf 
Penrose!).

But Hofstadter is still remains in the Aristotelian theology/metaphysics. He 
miss the fact that all computation are realised in arithmetic.

You can see the arithmetical reality as a combinatory algebra (using n * m = 
phi_n(m)).

If o is computable, and ô  is its code,  the standard model of arithmetic N 
satisfies 

Er(T(ô, x, r) & U(r)), 

with T being Kleene’s predicate, and U the result-extracting function, which 
extract the result from the code of the computation r.
See Davis ‘computability and unsolvability’ chapter 4 for a purely arithmetical 
definition of T.

With this in mind, the burden of the proof is the hand of those who add some 
ontological commitment to elementary arithmetic. They have to abandon 
Mechanism, (and thus Darwin & Co.) or explain how a Reality (be it a god or a 
universe) can make some computations more real than other for the universal 
machine emulated by those computations. But with Mechanism, that is impossible 
without adding something non Turing emulable in the processing of the mind.

> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key

With mechanism information is the key too, but “information” is like 
“infinite”: a very fuzzy complex notion, made even more complicated by the 
discovery of a physical notion of information (quantum information). With 
Mechanism, anything physical (and thus quantum information) must be derived 
from the first person plural appearance lived by the universal number in 
arithmetic. Then the mathematics of self-reference does exactly that, and 
indeed the observable enforces an arithmetical interpretation of quantum logic 
and physics. Mechanism (the simplest hypothesis in cognitive science by 
default) is not yet refuted.
Here Tegmark has the correct mathematicalist position, but fail to take into 
account the laws of machine self-reference to derive physics.
Tononi, Chalmers, Dennett remains also trapped in the materialist framework, 
but we cannot have both Mechanism and Materialism together, as they are 
logically contradictory (up to some technical nuances I don’t want bother 
people with here).

> 
> To me all seem potentially valid,

It would be valid, if it was made clear that to solve the mind-body problem 
(the consciousness-matter problem) we have to derive the physical laws from the 
statistic on all computations in arithmetic. 

This works as the first evidences are that the physical reality described well 
the many-worlds interpretation of elementary arithmetic (as seen from the 
universal number personal perspective, given by the intensional variant of 
Gödel’s provability predicate, which is a sort of logical (assertative, true or 
false) equivalent to Kleene’s predicate.

Hofstadter and Dennett get very close to the correct theology in their bools 
“Mind’s I”, especially Dennett where we can find the text where he missed the 
first person indeterminacy explicitly.

Bruno

> and perhaps all three are needed in some combination. I'm curious to hear 
> what other viewpoints exist or if there are other candidates for the "secret 
> sauce" behind consciousness I might have missed.
> 
> 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%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%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/A71188DE-0412-4118-ACE5-5C1E0E8FD47A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:00 AM  wrote:

*> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in
> democratic party run cities all of 2020.*
>

Mr. Potato Head, did you actually look at this video?

How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

There is nothing, absolutely positively NOTHING, in all of American history
that is comparable with the events of January 6, 2021 that are so well
documented in this video; not even during the Civil War did a mob of
traitors manage to carry the confederate flag into the US Capitol Building,
but Trump's thugs did.  And I repeat the question I've been asking you over
and over again but have yet to receive an answer: *WHAT THE HELL DOES THE
BLACK LIVES MATTERS PROTESTS HAVE TO DO WITH DONALD TRUMP'S  COUP D'ETAT
ATTEMPT?!*

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

b835

-- 
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/CAJPayv1xsXUUtqw%3Da-aAcQvY%3DsQQAtK%3D2CVo5u1sfUnW0Uow1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:30 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> *> Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the
>> probability?*
>>
>
> With a few caveats, which I spelled out previously, you already know I
> do.  I said a few days ago:
>
> "*If Everett is right and every change no matter how small causes the
> universe to split, then there must be some changes to my brain that are so
> small (one neutron in one neuron moving one Planck length to the left )
> that they cause no change in conscious experience and do not degrade the
> memory of being John K Clark yesterday. Therefore there must be an
> astronomical number to an astronomical power of John K Clarks all living in
> different, very very slightly different, worlds. The number would be HUGE
> but it would still be finite, so the number of John K Clarks that see you
> flip a fair coin and come up heads 5 times in a row must be twice as large
> as the number of times he sees you do it 6 times, but there would still be
> a few that see him do it 100 times, maybe 1000 or even more*."
>


That seems a bit confused. The JKCs you seem to be talking about are
independent of the Schrodinger equation, even independent of the coin
tossing experiment.

Why would this very large number of JKCs all indulge in a frenzy of coin
tossing at the same time?

I suspect that you are trying to get at some idea of probability as
self-locating uncertainty -- after all these coin tosses, the JKC is
uncertain as to which copy he is, which world he is in. But that works only
if the copies are generated in the actual quantum coin tossing experiment
-- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea doesn't work -- there
is no causal connection between the experiments and the copies. The issue
then is how the Schrodinger equation generates all these copies. After all,
for a series of experiments with only two possible outcomes for each trial,
the Schrodinger equation generates only two copies per trial. There is no
source of a very large number of copies; and no way in which those copies
could be generated in the proportions required by the Born rule. The Born
rule is independent of the Schrodinger equation.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQRxvoQ9bLSxzVHvjL%3DjPS9NewL90LTPqDmXuccL1e0%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?