date:20210710

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 10:36 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 11-07-2021 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour.
> >>
> >> It does so, otherwise the experiment would have proven that QM is
> >> invalid.
> >
> > So, in your opinion, the quantum mechanical analysis given in the
> > paper is wrong.
>
> It is correct, it's just that your conclusion about the MWI based on
> that paper is incorrect. Escaping infrared photons and the decoherence
> this causes are totally irrelevant. Whether or not an interference
> pattern can be detected is not relevant to the question of whether or
> not a superposition exists when we know that it exist and it has no
> decohered.

The question is not whether or not there is a superposition. The question
is whether or not the superposition is coherent. If the balls are entangled
with photons that have escaped, the superposition has decohered and is no
longer coherent. Loss of coherence means that there can be no interference
pattern. It is not just that it is not visible -- it simply no longer
exists. Coherence can only be restored if the escaping information is
quantum erased. The escaping photons are part of the total system. If you
ignore this entanglement, the remaining system is a mixed state.

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/CAFxXSLSDT0WQ%2BMpBJ-nH-waNX506m8umsoG%3DS28y3GAJfK%2Bbug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 10:21 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 11-07-2021 00:59, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> On 10-07-2021 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> >>> On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large
>  number of particles that even with what we consider to be
> >> permanent
>  records, you don't get rid of the theoretical possibility of
>  interference between the sectors where those records are
> >> different.
> >>>
> >>> We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the Hubble
> >>> radius.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The expansion of the universe is irrelevant. The information needed
> >> to see the interference pattern continues to exist outside the horizon
> >> when it isn't accessible to us anymore. And this is irrelevant for the
> >> discussions about observations in quantum mechanics. If an observer
> >> performs a measurement and the claim is that this is a unitary
> >> process with the observer evolving into a superposition, while the
> objection
> >>
> >> against this claim is that infrared photons are escaping and will
> >> eventually move beyond the Hubble volume, then these photons will
> >> still not have escaped beyond the Hubble horizon by the time the
> observer
> >> is aware of the results of the experiment. So, whether or not the
> >> photons will eventually no longer be accessible, cannot be relevant.
> >
> > Once the photons escape from the immediate environs of the experiment,
> > they are not recoverable. Try shining a torch at night to illuminate a
> > tree. Now try to stop the illumination already present. You can stop
> > future illumination by covering the torch, or switching it off. But
> > once the tree is illuminated it is not reversible. The expansion of
> > the universe, and the existence of the Hubble horizon, just makes the
> > irreversibility more obvious.
> >
> This is only true in practice, not in principle because the escaping
> photons be captured and detected in principle.


Not true. You can;t ever catch up with the escaping photons to capture them.

It's also irrelevant,
> because the photons that escape continue to exist, the information
> contained in  the photons continues to exist, even if it were true that
> they could not be recovered. Then if we were to conduct an interference
> experiment with the balls then we wouldn't see an interference pattern.
> But if we write down where each balls lands on the screen then this
> information together with information that could be obtained by
> performing certain measurements on the escaping photons emitted by each
> ball would still yield an interference pattern.
>


This is where you go seriously wrong. Simply recording where the photons
land does not quantum erase the information they carried. Once the photons
carry off the which way information, the interference pattern is restored
only if the information carried by the photons is quantum erased. Simply
running the photons into a screen (or the wall), even if you record where
they land, is not quantum erasure. See, for example, the paper
arXiv:1206.6578 on quantum erasure. In this paper they say "the presence of
path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any
possibility of interference. In other words, the atoms' path states alone
are not in a coherent superposition due to the atom-photon entanglement."
This transfers directly to the buckyball experiment under discussion.
Running the photons into a screen, or the wall, does not destroy the
ball-photon entanglement.

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/CAFxXSLQDOr5CVQXgFwRnCKMA69JNCG7f5McdkC6HbW_OG-RqTA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 5:35 PM, smitra wrote:

On 11-07-2021 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM smitra wrote:

On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour.

It does so, otherwise the experiment would have proven that QM is
invalid.

So, in your opinion, the quantum mechanical analysis given in the
paper is wrong.

It is correct, it's just that your conclusion about the MWI based on
that paper is incorrect. Escaping infrared photons and the decoherence
this causes are totally irrelevant. Whether or not an interference
pattern can be detected is not relevant to the question of whether or
not a superposition exists when we know that it exist and it has no
decohered. It's just that you then can't reproduce one particular line
of evidence for the validity of quantum mechanics in that particular
experiment.

If I prepare the state of a particle in a superposition and let this
interact in a certain way, then we know how this state will evolve. If
this evolution involves interactions with many particles, then the
system will decohere. Then it may be true that we cannot distinguish
the state of the system from being in a pure or mixed state in
practice due to not being able to conduct an interference experiment
involving a very large number of particles, but quantum mechanics
still tells us that the superposition exists and that if we were to
conduct the right sort of interference experiment, we would see an
interference that would prove that the state is not a mixed state.

But does it exist if part of the information has crossed the Hubble
boundary? Then there is no experiment, even in principle, that would
prove the state is not a mixed one.

Brent

Then given that we don't have any experimental evidence to doubt the
validity of quantum mechanics, saying that the superposition does not
really exists in such a a case, is just silly.

Saibal

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/CAFxXSLQ%2BUP%2B1jNmhS%3DxBkALNpTkP%3D9pL1CdNmHQR7oZtNh-SsA%40mail.gmail.com

[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%2BUP%2B1jNmhS%3DxBkALNpTkP%3D9pL1CdNmHQR7oZtNh-SsA%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/240b0b9c-024d-dd3b-1d8e-606f748a73fc%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 11-07-2021 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM smitra wrote:

On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour.

It does so, otherwise the experiment would have proven that QM is
invalid.

So, in your opinion, the quantum mechanical analysis given in the
paper is wrong.

If I prepare the state of a particle in a superposition and let this
interact in a certain way, then we know how this state will evolve. If
this evolution involves interactions with many particles, then the
system will decohere. Then it may be true that we cannot distinguish the
state of the system from being in a pure or mixed state in practice due
to not being able to conduct an interference experiment involving a very
large number of particles, but quantum mechanics still tells us that
the superposition exists and that if we were to conduct the right sort
of interference experiment, we would see an interference that would
prove that the state is not a mixed state.

Then given that we don't have any experimental evidence to doubt the
validity of quantum mechanics, saying that the superposition does not
really exists in such a a case, is just silly.

Saibal

Bruce

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%2BUP%2B1jNmhS%3DxBkALNpTkP%3D9pL1CdNmHQR7oZtNh-SsA%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/8eb23320de8d93083421920af31af52e%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 11-07-2021 00:59, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM smitra wrote:

On 10-07-2021 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large
number of particles that even with what we consider to be

permanent

records, you don't get rid of the theoretical possibility of
interference between the sectors where those records are

different.

We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the

Hubble

radius.

against this claim is that infrared photons are escaping and will
eventually move beyond the Hubble volume, then these photons will
still
not have escaped beyond the Hubble horizon by the time the observer
is
aware of the results of the experiment. So, whether or not the
photons
will eventually no longer be accessible, cannot be relevant.

Once the photons escape from the immediate environs of the experiment,
they are not recoverable. Try shining a torch at night to illuminate a
tree. Now try to stop the illumination already present. You can stop
future illumination by covering the torch, or switching it off. But
once the tree is illuminated it is not reversible. The expansion of
the universe, and the existence of the Hubble horizon, just makes the
irreversibility more obvious.

This is only true in practice, not in principle because the escaping
photons be captured and detected in principle. It's also irrelevant,
because the photons that escape continue to exist, the information
contained in the photons continues to exist, even if it were true that
they could not be recovered. Then if we were to conduct an interference
experiment with the balls then we wouldn't see an interference pattern.
But if we write down where each balls lands on the screen then this
information together with information that could be obtained by
performing certain measurements on the escaping photons emitted by each
ball would still yield an interference pattern.

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/CAFxXSLSjqpTNcrnEWiHLsjfV_JgTOooBB-0uaW27DdByMTWrWQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSjqpTNcrnEWiHLsjfV_JgTOooBB-0uaW27DdByMTWrWQ%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/1291da68cf7fbeb39daa972be8afe317%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 1:18 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour.
>
> It does so, otherwise the experiment would have proven that QM is
> invalid.
>

So, in your opinion, the quantum mechanical analysis given in the paper is
wrong.

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/CAFxXSLQ%2BUP%2B1jNmhS%3DxBkALNpTkP%3D9pL1CdNmHQR7oZtNh-SsA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:27 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 10-07-2021 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> > On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large
> >> number of particles that even with what we consider to be permanent
> >> records, you don't get rid of the theoretical possibility of
> >> interference between the sectors where those records are different.
> >
> > We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the Hubble
> > radius.
> >
>
> The expansion of the universe is irrelevant. The information needed to
> see the interference pattern continues to exist outside the horizon when
> it isn't accessible to us anymore. And this is irrelevant for the
> discussions about observations in quantum mechanics. If an observer
> performs a measurement and the claim is that this is a unitary process
> with the observer evolving into a superposition, while the objection
> against this claim is that infrared photons are escaping and will
> eventually move beyond the Hubble volume, then these photons will still
> not have escaped beyond the Hubble horizon by the time the observer is
> aware of the results of the experiment. So, whether or not the photons
> will eventually no longer be accessible, cannot be relevant.
>


Once the photons escape from the immediate environs of the experiment, they
are not recoverable. Try shining a torch at night to illuminate a tree. Now
try to stop the illumination already present. You can stop future
illumination by covering the torch, or switching it off. But once the tree
is illuminated it is not reversible. The expansion of the universe, and the
existence of the Hubble horizon, just makes the irreversibility more
obvious.

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/CAFxXSLSjqpTNcrnEWiHLsjfV_JgTOooBB-0uaW27DdByMTWrWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 10-07-2021 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large
number of particles that even with what we consider to be permanent
records, you don't get rid of the theoretical possibility of
interference between the sectors where those records are different.

We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the Hubble
radius.

The expansion of the universe is irrelevant. The information needed to
see the interference pattern continues to exist outside the horizon when
it isn't accessible to us anymore. And this is irrelevant for the
discussions about observations in quantum mechanics. If an observer
performs a measurement and the claim is that this is a unitary process
with the observer evolving into a superposition, while the objection
against this claim is that infrared photons are escaping and will
eventually move beyond the Hubble volume, then these photons will still
not have escaped beyond the Hubble horizon by the time the observer is
aware of the results of the experiment. So, whether or not the photons
will eventually no longer be accessible, cannot be relevant.

Saibal

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/b7bcea5fe8bcc0e7605965007a2e90dc%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 12:20 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 2:49:07 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 4:19 PM Tomas Pales wrote:

/>You are conscious of certain parts of your brain/

I've never actually seen it

Your eyes receive visual signals from outside your head, not from the
inside, so you don't see your own brain.

soif I hadn't read about human anatomy in books I wouldn't even
know that I had a brain. How can I be conscious of something that
I don't even know exists?

Neuroscience says that we are not directly conscious of the external
world but we are directly conscious of its neural representations in
our brain. I would say that's because we/are/ those representations.

I think this kind of talk puts far too much on consciousness. Conscious
thoughts seem to pop into my head with no antecedents, yet they relate
to past and distant things in my experience. The Poincare' effect shows
that even the most abstract thought is largely unconscious.

Brent

So you are conscious of parts of your brain but not of those
properties of the brain that look like gray matter when they are
looked at through the eyes. Instead, the properties of the brain you
are conscious of look like a red tomato, taste like chocolate or sound
like music.

You may wonder how can a piece of gray matter look like a red tomato?
I think it's because only those properties of the brain matter that
are perceptible by the eyes look gray. The brain matter has many other
properties that cannot be seen but some of them may feel like when you
are looking at a red tomato.

--
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/c42ad071-53c1-45a6-be66-241f805db872n%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/9bbb99fe-4599-c60f-6ceb-9a5bb9f05aca%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 2:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

And you're never going to find a being that behaves
intelligently based on information that can be quantum erased.

You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.

Can you prove that? How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive
at a definite decision?

With a quantum brain, you can hack all credit cards, by running shor
algorithm in your head for example.

You argument seems to negate the possibility of quantum speeding. You
would be right if P = NP, or something…

No. As I recall even Shor's algorithm has a probabilistic step so that
the answer is only correct with high probability, not certainty.
Quantum speedup is possible, just not quantum definiteness. One you or
your QC decides to act that act cannot be a superposition of actions.
And the decoherence is not just FAPP, it is inherent in the loss of
information across the Hubble boundary.

Brent

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a898c1a-c547-8366-4bc3-47c82e80d5aa%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/9CD6FA30-FA7B-493F-B83C-1A37D80A67AC%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/711be470-00a5-5609-0989-be1f213876d9%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales > wrote:

On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:28:11 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales wrote:
Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction
with gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some
time t and then continues the computation with gravitational
constant 5 x 10 to the -11, or just halts? That would be an
instability or cessation of gravitational law.

Yes, and that exists, but such world will have a very low
probability to be accessed by any observer, due to the fact that,
below our mechanist substitution level, all such theories intervene.

How low is this probability? Is it maybe as low as the probability
that my whole body quantum-tunnels through a wall?

Yes.

What does it mean that "below our mechanist substitution level, all
such theories intervene”?

If your consciousness does not require some details: like the position
of an electron of some atom in some neurotransmitter (say), then it
will be associate as much with your brain and that election here, and
with you brain and that electron there, and if you don’t measure the
position of that electron, the two histories can interfere statistically.

What would it mean to measure the state of your own brain?

Brent

An electronic orbital is such a map: it tells you where you can find
the electron in your most probable computational histories.

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%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/8998ABE3-8471-4F97-B511-998136000ECE%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/057a2d1a-9183-c316-eb03-74996e661ec3%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark > wrote:

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

>> 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 an intelligent and presumably consciousbeingonce existed that knew
which slot all the electrons went through, but those interference
bands still showed up anyway. Don't you find that a little strange?
If Many Worlds is wrong and that being didn't exist in another world,
then where did it exist?

It, or rather it's knowledge, existed in the past, before being erased.

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/8425dc5e-4249-21a5-fab9-15485012c0f2%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large number of 
particles that even with what we consider to be permanent records, you don't 
get rid of the theoretical possibility of interference between the sectors 
where those records are different.


We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the Hubble 
radius.


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/4aae1572-2765-e262-8936-a4d6e3c842e3%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 7/10/2021 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales > wrote:

>> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you
can't measure consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch.

/> In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a
dictionary:/

*consciousness* noun

I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I
long-ago realized that neither she nor the lexicographerswho wrote
that big thick book are the fonts of all wisdom.

>> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and
because Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct,
consciousness must be an inevitable byproduct of
intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is not a noun, it's
a word that describes what a noun (in this case the brain)
does, in other words consciousness is an adjective.

/> You mean a verb then, no? /

I think adjective fits the bill a littlebetter,I think Tomas Palesis
the way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way.

> /consciousness is a spatiotemporal object./

I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would
be like asking where the number 11 or the color yellow or "fast" is
located. If my brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football
game from Detroit and I'm listening to a friend in Australia on my
telephone and I'm thinking about The Great Wall of China would it
make sense to say my consciousness is really located inside a box
made of bone mounted on my shoulders when I have no conscious
experience of being in a bone box on my shoulders? I don't think so.

Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious
experience at least temporarily.

Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point
of view of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does
not make sense, as it is associated to infinitely many truing
universal relation.

That's incorrect. I've been knocked unconscious and when I regained
consciousness (it was on a few seconds) I realized the gap my conscious
experience.

The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be
proved both with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial
combinatory algebra (like a model of arithmetic).

So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness.

What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations.

Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any
model (in the logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic
(Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz)).

But not in any brain...they are only finite.

I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing,
but “appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get
contradictory when associated or singularised through any
supplementary axioms, even the induction axioms used to define what an
observer can be.

You assume some ontological commitment inconsistent with Mechanism here.

You assume an ontological commitment to Church-Turing infinite
computations.

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/59fe7a9a-edce-6a41-3945-8bb4104efa44%40verizon.net.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread Tomas Pales

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 2:49:07 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 4:19 PM Tomas Pales  wrote:
>
> *>You are conscious of certain parts of your brain*
>>
>
> I've never actually seen it 
>

Your eyes receive visual signals from outside your head, not from the 
inside, so you don't see your own brain.

> so if I hadn't read about human anatomy in books I wouldn't even know that 
> I had a brain. How can I be conscious of something that I don't even know 
> exists?
>

Neuroscience says that we are not directly conscious of the external world 
but we are directly conscious of its neural representations in our brain. I 
would say that's because we* are* those representations. So you are 
conscious of parts of your brain but not of those properties of the brain 
that look like gray matter when they are looked at through the eyes. 
Instead, the properties of the brain you are conscious of look like a red 
tomato, taste like chocolate or sound like music.

You may wonder how can a piece of gray matter look like a red tomato? I 
think it's because only those properties of the brain matter that are 
perceptible by the eyes look gray. The brain matter has many other 
properties that cannot be seen but some of them may feel like when you are 
looking at a red tomato.

-- 
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/c42ad071-53c1-45a6-be66-241f805db872n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


On 10-07-2021 07:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:21 AM smitra  wrote:


On 08-07-2021 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Do you dispute that that is what the paper by Hornberger et al.

says?


Bruce


I don't dispute these results. The buckyballs are coming from a
thermal
reservoir at some finite temperature. We can avoid working with
mixed
states by simply considering the interference pattern for each pure
state separately and then summing over the probability distribution
over
the pure states. But for this discussion we want to focus on what
the
interference pattern will be if all the buckyballs are in the same
exited state. If we put the entire system ina finite volume then we
have
a countable set of allowed k-values for the photon momenta. We then
have
a set of allowed states for the photons defined by the allowed
momenta
and a polarization. We can then label these photon states using a
number
and then specify an arbitrary state for the photons by specifying
how
many photons we have in each state, and these numbers can then be
equal
to zero. If they are all zero then no photons are present.

If only the right slit is open, the state of the buckyball and the
photons just before the screen is hit can be denoted as:

|Right> = sum over n1, n2,n3,...|R(n1,n2,n3,...)>|n1,n2,n3,..>

where |R(n1,n2,...)> denotes the quantum state of the buckyball if
it
emits n1 photons in state 1, n2 photons in state 2 etc. The state of
the
photons is then denoted as |n1,n2,n3,..>

If only the left slit is open, the state of the buckyball and the
photons just before the screen is hit can be denoted as:

|Left> = sum over n1, n2,n3,...|L(n1,n2,n3,...)>|n1,n2,n3,..>

where |R(n1,n2,...)> denotes the quantum state of the buckyball.
Here we
note that the state of the photons will pick up a phase factor
relative
to the case of only the right slit being open, but we can then
absorb
this phase factor in |L(n1,n2,n3,...)>.

With both slits open, we'll then have a state of the form:

|psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|Right> + |Left>]

The inner product of |psi> with some position eigenstate |x>,
 is
then a state vector for the photon states, the squared norm of that
state vector is the probability of finding the buckyball at position
x,
because this is the sum over the probabilities for photons over all
possible photon states. So, the probability is then:

P(x) = ^2 = 1/2 [^2 + ^2] +
Re[]

We can then evaluate the interference term as follows:

Re[] = Re sum over n1, n2,n3,...m1,m2,m3


*


Using that  = 0 unless m_j = n_j for
all
j, in which case this inner product equals 1, we then have:

Re[] = Re sum over n1, n2,n3
* =

Re[*] +
Re[*] + .  (1)

As explained above when there are photons present then we've
absorbed
the phase factor due to translation of the photon states in the
states
|L(n1,n2,n3...)>. For each wave vector k there is a factor for each
photon with that wavevector of exp(i k dot r) where r is the
position of
the left slit w.r.t. the right slit. So, the total phase factor will
be:

Product over j of exp(i kj nj dot r)

In the experiment there is then an additional summation over the
pure
states of the buckyballs. If the temperature is low then the
summation
will consist of states for which |R(0,0,0,..> and |L(0,0,0,..> are
the
dominant terms, as most of the time no photons will be emitted. At
higher temperatures the typical states there will be contributions
from
different numbers pf photons, so the interference pattern will be a
sum
of many different terms in (1) with comparable norms, they come with

different phase factors due to the different numbers of photons with

different momenta. So, the interference pattern will be washed out.


This analysis contradicts what you said in your first analysis. In the
first analysis, you claimed that no interference would be seen if the
IR photons were not detected.


In that case I considered a simple model where one photon would be 
emitted such that the state of that photon emitted from the ball moving 
through one slit would be orthogonal to that of the state of the photon 
emitted by the ball moving through the opther slit.



You seem to have dropped this notion in

the above.


In the derivation above I work in the momentum basis for the photons. 
Obviously, exp(i k dot r) and exp(i k dot (r+u)) are not orthogonal, but 
then one needs to consider a superposition of such momentum eigenstates 
as I do above.


 You now say that there is interference when no photons are

present, but this is washed out when there are different numbers of
photons.



Yes, the above derivation captures more of the details.


I think you are making the same basic mistake that you made when we
previously discussed  two-slit interference: You are analysing the two
slit case as a sum over single slit patterns, and assuming the
emission of independent photons from the ball through each slit. The
trouble is that there are not two balls, one for each slit. The same
bal

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 4:19 PM Tomas Pales  wrote:

>> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious
>> of?
>>
>
> *>You are conscious of certain parts of your brain*
>

I've never actually seen it so if I hadn't read about human anatomy in books I
wouldn't even know that I had a brain. How can I be conscious of something
that I don't even know exists?  And for thousands of years people thought
the heart was the earthly seat of the soul and consciousness, and they
thought the brain was just some goop inside the head of no more
philosophical significance than snot.

*> We can't rule out that your consciousness is not located in your brain*
>

But we don't even need to perform experiments to rule out the brain being
the location of consciousness because it is a logical absurdity to say you
are conscious of something you were not conscious of.  I certainly am not
conscious of being imprisoned in a box made of bone, and I very much doubt
anybody else is either.

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

bqm1

-- 
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/CAJPayv2SQ%2Bc%2BhQ8rsObO6O1P4C1cuBE5QB_xEsq-qiERMtgwjg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 3:52 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not
>
>

*> I disagree with this *

An embalmed brain rotting in a grave is a noun. Do you therefore think it's
conscious? I don't because it's not doing anything that 3 pounds of rotting
hamburger isn't doing, and neither of the two are behaving intelligently.

>> therefore "consciousness" is not a noun, it's a word that describes what
>> a noun (in this case the brain) does, in other words consciousness is an
>> adject
>
>
> *> This is logically inconsistent with Descartes Mechanism. *

I have no idea what  "*Descartes Mechanism*" is, and after listening to you
all these years I am quite certain you can't give a coherent explanation
for it either, but whatever it means if it is logically inconsistent with
what I said then "*Descartes Mechanism*" is wrong.
*> Without mechanism, it is consistent, but still problematic with Occam
razor *

As I said before,  Occam razor is about economy of assumptions not economy
of results.

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

0o6

-- 
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/CAJPayv18k88O-_k7%3D8EwyzvKm1uTn84_ZaLxycbrpb0O6D9oRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

2021-07-10 Thread Jason Resch

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021, 1:58 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:21 AM smitra  wrote:
>
>> On 08-07-2021 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you dispute that that is what the paper by Hornberger et al. says?
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>
>> I don't dispute these results. The buckyballs are coming from a thermal
>> reservoir at some finite temperature. We can avoid working with mixed
>> states by simply considering the interference pattern for each pure
>> state separately and then summing over the probability distribution over
>> the pure states. But for this discussion we want to focus on what the
>> interference pattern will be if all the buckyballs are in the same
>> exited state. If we put the entire system ina finite volume then we have
>> a countable set of allowed k-values for the photon momenta. We then have
>> a set of allowed states for the photons defined by the allowed momenta
>> and a polarization. We can then label these photon states using a number
>> and then specify an arbitrary state for the photons by specifying how
>> many photons we have in each state, and these numbers can then be equal
>> to zero. If they are all zero then no photons are present.
>>
>> If only the right slit is open, the state of the buckyball and the
>> photons just before the screen is hit can be denoted as:
>>
>> |Right> = sum over n1, n2,n3,...|R(n1,n2,n3,...)>|n1,n2,n3,..>
>>
>> where |R(n1,n2,...)> denotes the quantum state of the buckyball if it
>> emits n1 photons in state 1, n2 photons in state 2 etc. The state of the
>> photons is then denoted as |n1,n2,n3,..>
>>
>>
>> If only the left slit is open, the state of the buckyball and the
>> photons just before the screen is hit can be denoted as:
>>
>> |Left> = sum over n1, n2,n3,...|L(n1,n2,n3,...)>|n1,n2,n3,..>
>>
>> where |R(n1,n2,...)> denotes the quantum state of the buckyball. Here we
>> note that the state of the photons will pick up a phase factor relative
>> to the case of only the right slit being open, but we can then absorb
>> this phase factor in |L(n1,n2,n3,...)>.
>>
>> With both slits open, we'll then have a state of the form:
>>
>> |psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|Right> + |Left>]
>>
>> The inner product of |psi> with some position eigenstate |x>,  is
>> then a state vector for the photon states, the squared norm of that
>> state vector is the probability of finding the buckyball at position x,
>> because this is the sum over the probabilities for photons over all
>> possible photon states. So, the probability is then:
>>
>> P(x) = ^2 = 1/2 [^2 + ^2] +
>> Re[]
>>
>>
>> We can then evaluate the interference term as follows:
>>
>> Re[] = Re sum over n1, n2,n3,...m1,m2,m3
>> *
>>
>> Using that  = 0 unless m_j = n_j for all
>> j, in which case this inner product equals 1, we then have:
>>
>> Re[] = Re sum over n1, n2,n3
>> * =
>>
>>
>> Re[*] +
>> Re[*] + .  (1)
>>
>> As explained above when there are photons present then we've absorbed
>> the phase factor due to translation of the photon states in the states
>> |L(n1,n2,n3...)>. For each wave vector k there is a factor for each
>> photon with that wavevector of exp(i k dot r) where r is the position of
>> the left slit w.r.t. the right slit. So, the total phase factor will be:
>>
>> Product over j of exp(i kj nj dot r)
>>
>> In the experiment there is then an additional summation over the pure
>> states of the buckyballs. If the temperature is low then the summation
>> will consist of states for which |R(0,0,0,..> and |L(0,0,0,..> are the
>> dominant terms, as most of the time no photons will be emitted. At
>> higher temperatures the typical states there will be contributions from
>> different numbers pf photons, so the interference pattern will be a sum
>> of many different terms in (1) with comparable norms, they come with
>> different phase factors due to the different numbers of photons with
>> different momenta. So, the interference pattern will be washed out.
>>
>
>
> This analysis contradicts what you said in your first analysis. In the
> first analysis, you claimed that no interference would be seen if the IR
> photons were not detected. You seem to have dropped this notion in the
> above. You now say that there is interference when no photons are present,
> but this is washed out when there are different numbers of photons.
>
> I think you are making the same basic mistake that you made when we
> previously discussed  two-slit interference: You are analysing the two slit
> case as a sum over single slit patterns, and assuming the emission of
> independent photons from the ball through each slit. The trouble is that
> there are not two balls, one for each slit. The same ball goes through both
> slits and there is only one ball emitting (or not emitting) photons.
>
> Neither of your analyses actually explain the observed behaviour.
>

This conversation brought to mind Feynman's question: what happens in the
limit of going from 2 slits to infinite slits, such that the

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?



> On 7 Jul 2021, at 09:34, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 06-07-2021 22:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> On 7/6/2021 12:49 PM, smitra wrote:
>>> On 06-07-2021 19:34, Jason Resch wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
  wrote:
 And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently
 based on information that can be quantum erased.
 You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
 Jason
>>> Indeed, the critics have to show how the laws of physics imply that 
>>> decoherence cannot be limited to the extent necessary to run a good enough 
>>> quantum computer simulation of an entire brain for this to work. And one 
>>> has lots of elbowroom available for the thought experiment. Practical issue 
>>> that would make this unfeasible for us to do play no role at all, but real 
>>> physical limits would be valid objections. The amount of available 
>>> resources that can be used physically is at least a large fraction of all 
>>> the materials that are present in our galaxy. One can build Dyson spheres 
>>> around a far fraction of all stars in the galaxy, the available time is at 
>>> least of the order of tens of billions of years. The simulation does not 
>>> have to run in real time, each simulated second can take a billion years, 
>>> which may be necessary to perform enough quantum error correction to make 
>>> this work.
>>> If it can be shown that under more generous conditions this is not 
>>> feasible, so large scale quantum computing is not going to work even with 
>>> most of the resources in the observable universe, and that a large scale 
>>> computation needed for the thought experiment cannot be finished before the 
>>> end of the universe, then the critics have a point. But even then it's only 
>>> a hint of a problem, because the objection would only be consistent with 
>>> the unproven hypothesis that unitary time evolution breaks down when a 
>>> large enough number of degrees of freedom get entangled with a quantum 
>>> system.
>>> Saibal
>> Why are you worrying about enormous quantum computers?  A quantum
>> computer should have much more computational power than a classical
>> computer and we already know of an intelligent classical computer fits
>> in a little more than a liter.  The problem isn't computational power,
>> it's reaching definite answer.  Quantum computers in general provide a
>> readout by decoherence, and then it's no longer erasable.
>> Brent
> 
> 
> There can never be a definite answer as QM is unitary and decoherence is 
> never complete. If you assume that the real world is fundamentally different 
> from a virtual world simulated by a quantum computer, no matter how large 
> that quantum simulation, then you are assuming that the real world violates 
> QM in an essential way.

Yes. That is why Bohr has to distinguish the micro-qunatum reality, and the 
classical macro realm. To believe in a collapse is the same as to believe that 
the SWE is wrong, and can’t be applied to the observer. Bohr was explicitly 
dualist. He even believed that the SWE would be wrong at smaller scale.

The SWE is the same as the MANY-WORLDS, that is why the pioneer feels necessary 
to add the collapse postulate, but Everett showed clearly that this was neither 
necessary, nor even consistent with the idea that the observer obeys to the SWE.

Now, we know that Bruce and John disbelieves in the self-indeterminacy in 
self-multiplication experience, which is inconsistent at a much more basic 
level, and eventually is the usual confusion between []p and []p & p, i.e. the 
confusion between first person description and third person description. That 
is of course vital for understanding SWE without collapse.

Bruno



> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/05d3a46c73bbcb9ba1f6c6c0b0b79777%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 the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FB4CCED3-785D-44CD-8AC1-98794F960BE2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 7 Jul 2021, at 03:21, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> Then I guess I don't understand this part:
> 
> 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 factored. Then have the AI copy that number to 
> another register to prove it went through the AI's mind.
> 
> What does it mean to "read a definite random number"
> 
> F(x) is a quantum algorithm (a combination AI + Shor's algorithm) which takes 
> an input x where x is a set of N qubits, with each qubit initialized to a 
> superposition of 1 and 0.
> 
> Since the qubits are in a superposition representing 2^N states, the quantum 
> algorithm likewise becomes a superposition of 2^N uniquely processed values. 
> Each one can be viewed as a unique evaluation of F(i) where i is each of the 
> possible N-bit bit strings.
> 
> Since F() includes a conscious AI evaluating the input value, and since it 
> exists in a superposition, then the evaluation on a quantum computer 
> corresponds to 2^N independent conscious states.
> 
> 
> and what does that have to do with recording which slit a photon went thru?
> 
> 
> It's an alternate example of Deutsch's experiment which shows that 
> consciousness doesn't cause collapse, assuming adding a conscious AI to 
> Shor's algorithm doesn't somehow break the algorithm. If you can still factor 
> numbers with the AI added to the circuit, then consciousness doesn't cause 
> collapse, and we can see QM directly leads to many "split" observers.
> 
> 
> No one now  believes that consciousness has anything to do with collapse. For 
> example, in fGRW, the collapse is caused by independent stochastic 'flashes' 
> that have no relevance to consciousness. In Bohm's theory, there never is any 
> collapse because there is never any mystic 'superposition’.


Bohm’s theory keep the wave, and the superposition. It just that the particles 
stay in only one term of that superposition, yet remained influenced (even at a 
FTL speed) by what happens in the superposition. It is the many-worlds, + a 
complex supplementary potential to make infinitely many people into zombies, so 
that consciousness is singularised in one branch only.
It is heavy metaphysical assumption to satisfy personal coquetry...



> In Penroses gravitational induced collapse, the collapse is due to changes in 
> the spacetime metric -- again, independent of consciousness.

Von Neumann and Wigner were the early advocate of the “consciousness makes the 
collapse” idea. 
I consider that it has been refuted correctly by Abner Shimony (and many 
others).



> 
>  So Deutsch's thought experiment is about nothing at all, and proves nothing 
> at all.


In that experiment, the Many)worlds predict that the observer can remember 
having seen as definite result, without remembering each one, and that, if 
done, would add confirmation to the MW, or better, many histories or many 
computations, like arithmetic (+ mechanism) predicted.

Bruno




> 
> 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/CAFxXSLTw6gRbcEOU-AYf-uz%2BBPL%2BojThFYp%2B%3DzZmp5ndmTzHqg%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/FBEEFAFB-769B-4D41-BF4D-71A086337B10%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based on 
>> information that can be quantum erased.
>> 
>> You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
> Can you prove that?  How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive at a 
> definite decision?
> 
> 

With a quantum brain, you can hack all credit cards, by running shor algorithm 
in your head for example.

You argument seems to negate the possibility of quantum speeding. You would be 
right if P = NP, or something…

Bruno


> Brent
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a898c1a-c547-8366-4bc3-47c82e80d5aa%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/9CD6FA30-FA7B-493F-B83C-1A37D80A67AC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 6 Jul 2021, at 19:22, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> At an open AA meeting I once attended,  some atheist-leaning recovering 
> alcoholics once joked that GOD meant Group Of Drunks. 

LOL.

I read that today it means mainly:  Gold-Oil-Drugs…

Group of Drunks is closer to the original meaning. Once theology has been 
stolen from science, the first interdiction was the (otherwise common) use of 
entheogen, like alcohol, which still remain present in the Church...

:)

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2021 10:56 am
> Subject: Re: Why are laws of physics stable?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matter”
> 
> Yeah, many people are like that, people such as yourself who long ago have 
> given up on the idea of God because it is ridiculous but love the way the 
> English word  "G-O-D" sounds so much that they refuse to abandon it.
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> stty
>> 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/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%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/1268499368.4485916.1625592170442%40mail.yahoo.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/DF2C3753-82D4-40C1-9D4E-27E7A1D4BBC5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:28:11 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales > > wrote:
>> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with 
>> gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some time t and then 
>> continues the computation with gravitational constant 5 x 10 to the -11, or 
>> just halts? That would be an instability or cessation of gravitational law.
> 
> Yes, and that exists, but such world will have a very low probability to be 
> accessed by any observer, due to the fact that, below our mechanist 
> substitution level, all such theories intervene.
> 
> How low is this probability? Is it maybe as low as the probability that my 
> whole body quantum-tunnels through a wall?

Yes.



> 
> What does it mean that "below our mechanist substitution level, all such 
> theories intervene”?


If your consciousness does not require some details: like the position of an 
electron of some atom in some neurotransmitter (say), then it will be associate 
as much with your brain and that election here, and with you brain and that 
electron there, and if you don’t measure the position of that electron, the two 
histories can interfere statistically.

An electronic orbital is such a map: it tells you where you can find the 
electron in your most probable computational histories.

Bruno 




> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%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/8998ABE3-8471-4F97-B511-998136000ECE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:56, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matter”
> 
> Yeah, many people are like that, people such as yourself who long ago have 
> given up on the idea of God because it is ridiculous but love the way the 
> English word  "G-O-D" sounds so much that they refuse to abandon it.

I just use Plato’s definition. It is Aristotle who invented a supplementary 
spurious God along a “creation”. 

Replace “GOD” by any ontological commitment in some fundamental reality. GOD is 
defined by whatever you assume to explain all the rest.

You are the one believing in a mysterious, never defined, primitive 
materiality, and you use it to select some computations in arithmetic to make 
them more real than all of them in arithmetic, but that does not just introduce 
an infinity of zombies in arithmetic, I also confer something not Turing 
emulable playing a role in the brain, forcing the abandon of Mechanism. 

Bruno

> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> stty
>> 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/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%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/1E66138E-3703-4490-BBB6-04DD61C60C01%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:39, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:12:49 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> The physical laws are stable because they have an arithmetical origin in the 
> “head” of any universal+ machine (those which have the theology G*)
> 
> What do you mean by "head”?

Here, I meant the mind of the universal machine, like in the expression “it is 
all in your head”, which means “it is a product of your imagination”.

With Indexical Digital Mechanism (“yes doctor (for a digital body transplant” + 
the Church-Turing thesis), the physical reality is a statistics on all relative 
computations going through “my state”. There is an infinity of such 
computations, in all models of any Turing complete theory. 

You might read my grand public presentation in Amsterdam in 2004: 
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 

Bruno

> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24b316a1-1f19-4b5b-ac6a-1b75fd718759n%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/8DCE256B-5929-44D9-A48E-BF0E0AA48BDE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 6 Jul 2021, at 15:53, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 4:19 PM Tomas Pales  > wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of?
> 
> You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that have 
> high organized complexity of a certain kind), many of which are 
> representations of external objects. If there are no representations of your 
> skull it is probably because they have not been useful in evolution. It is 
> more useful to be conscious of what is going on around your body than of the 
> interior of your skull.
> 
> We can't rule out that your consciousness is not located in your brain and 
> your brain just serves as a kind of preliminary processor of sensory data 
> that somehow sends the preprocessed data to some other object (soul?) where 
> your consciousness is located but there's not much evidence for that.
> 
> 
> This conversation reminds me of Daniel Dennett's short essay "Where am I?":
> 
> https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf 
> 


That is very good. It is the place where Dennett get very close, but miss, the 
first person indeterminacy, note.

Bruno



> 
> 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/eba612c7-b8d1-4e15-836c-d11ca4eac097n%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%2BBCJUixHJyf%2B0mRPy%3Ds7xT%2BY8PQj0RFia%3D6w7Bu9%2BxgUCs35g%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/D5FD8CA7-3098-4423-9862-F3A01576CBE9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> >> 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? 
> > I would guess the interference bands would be present exactly because, ex 
> > hypothesi, the which-way information was quantum erased.
> 
> So an intelligent and presumably conscious being once existed that knew which 
> slot all the electrons went through, but those interference bands still 
> showed up anyway. Don't you find that a little strange? If Many Worlds is 
> wrong and that being didn't exist in another world, then where did it exist? 
> 
> >> 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? 
> > Concede what? 
> 
> What experimental evidence would make you concede that your theory that Many 
> Worlds must be wrong, is wrong. Or is your theory by its very nature 
> unprovable? My theory that Many Worlds is less wrong than other quantum 
> interpretations at least has the virtue of being capable of being proven 
> wrong. Let me put the question to you this way, what conclusion would you 
> draw if you saw interference bands on that photographic plate, and what 
> conclusion would you draw if you DID NOT SEE interference bands on that 
> photographic plate?
> > You're the one that cast the hypothetical in terms of consciousness.
> 
> I only said that because some (but not me) claim Quantum Mechanics has 
> something to do with consciousness, so if you want to test that claim 
> experimentally the first thing you're going to need is something people can 
> agree on that is conscious; and I don't think you're ever going to find 
> anything better for that "something" than a being that behaves intelligently.


I agree that using the quantum to explain consciousness does not work, despite 
the initial motivation brought by the wave collapse is not entirely 
meaningless, but this has failed (cf Abner Shimony). 

Without collapse, physics confirms the many-histories or many-dreams 
interpretation of arithmetic on which all universal numbers converge, again in 
arithmetic.

Consciousness is given by knowledge, which is given by the modes of 
self-reference imposed by incompleteness, (those with “& p”) and the fact that 
universal+ (Löbian) machine are aware of it.

P
[]p
[]p & p [HERE]
[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p. [HERE]

[]p & p gives knowledge, and []p & <>t & p gives a form of non transitive 
(immediate) physical consciousness.

The main facts are that G* (the theology) proves []p <-> []p & p, and that G, 
the machine itself, does not, making them obeying quite different logics and 
mathematics.

Bruno




> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> rroo
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv0urKFNHY_uv2Ue1TJQB%3DruSVzuTJG4y_JOdL1CbjCHXw%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/660568B2-816E-470F-884B-FF8F622B1F66%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?



> On 6 Jul 2021, at 09:21, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 05-07-2021 12:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:39 PM smitra  wrote:
>>> On 05-07-2021 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM smitra  wrote:
 I don't think this is actually done in the experiment. What is
 observed is the presence or absence of the interference pattern on
>>> the
 screen where the balls hit. The photons are not detected. But if,
>>> in
 principle, they are of suitable wavelength to resolve the slit
 difference, then the interference pattern vanishes. The experiment
>>> is
 convincing in that they start wil cold buckyballs which show a
>>> clear
 interference pattern. They then gradually heat the balls so that
>>> the
 typical wavelength of the photons decreases. This gradually washes
>>> out
 the interference pattern. (Because at lower temperatures, the
 wavelength distribution of the IR photons is such that a few of
>>> them
 have shorter wavelengths.) As the temperature is increased so that
 most IR photons have short enough wavelengths, the interference
 pattern disappears completely. The paper by Hornberger et al. is
>>> at
 arXiv:quant-ph/0412003v2
>>> This is then what I said previously, what you denied, i.e. that you
>>> are
>>> only considering part of the system which is defined by the reduced
>>> density matrix. The complete system of buckyball plus photons will
>>> show
>>> interference, even if the wavelength is small enough to resolve the
>>> slits provided you perform the right sort of measurement on the
>>> balls
>>> and photons.
>> That is false.
> 
> This is easy to see. Denote the buckyball state of a buckball moving through 
> the left slit by |L> and moving through the right slit by |R>. Suppose that a 
> photon is emitted by the by the buckyballs such that the ball moving through 
> the left slit emits a photon in a state |PL> that will be orthogonal to the 
> state |PR> of the photon emitted by the ball moving through the right slit . 
> The state of the system after the ball passes the slits is then:
> 
> |psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|L>|PL> + |R>|PR>]
> 
> This state then evolves under unitary time evolution, we can write the state 
> just before the ball hits the screen as:
> 
> |psi_s> = 1/sqrt(2) [|L_s>|PL_s> + |R_s>|PR_s>]
> 
> There is then no interference patter on the screen for the buckyballs because 
> |PL_s> and |PR_s> are orthogonal, the unitary time evolution preserves the 
> orthogonality of the initial states. The probability to observe a buckyball 
> on position x on the screen is:
> 
> P(x) = ^2 = 1/2 [||^2 + ||^2] + Re[ 
> * ]
> 
> And the last interference term is zero because  = 0
> 
> But if we also observe the photon on another screen and keep the joint count 
> for buckyballs landing on spot x on the buckyball screen and for photons 
> landing on spot y on the photon screen as a function of x and y, then we do 
> have an interference pattern as a function of x for fixed y. If we de note by 
> U the unitary time evolution for the photons until they hit their screen, and 
> put |PL_t> =U|PL_s> and |PR_t> = U|PR_s>, then the probability distribution 
> is:
> 
> P(x,y) = ||^2 = 1/2 [||^2||^2 + 
> ||^2||^2] +Re[ * *]
> 
> The interference term Re[ * *] does not vanish 
> as it involves evaluating the components of  the buckyball and photon states 
> in the position basis and so there is no inner product involved anymore. For 
> fixed y the quantity * will have some value that will be 
> nonzero in general, so if we keep y fixed then there will be an interference 
> term.
> 
> So, we can conclude that invoking escaping IR photons does not male any sense 
> in this discussion because all it does is it scrambles the interference 
> pattern to make it invisible in a way that allows it to be recovered in 
> principle using measurements on those IR photons. You can, of course, erase 
> the interference patter by measuring the observable for the photons that has 
> |PR> and |PL> as its eigenstates. But even in that case the information will 
> still be there in the state of all the atoms of the measurement apparatus for 
> the photons. But if you don't perform any measurement then the information 
> will simply continue to exists in the escaping photons.
> 
> So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large number of 
> particles that even with what we consider to be permanent records, you don't 
> get rid of the theoretical possibility of interference between the sectors 
> where those records are different. So, the existence of parallel worlds 
> cannot be made fully 100% irrelevant if QM is rigorously correct, and we 
> cannot therefore argue that QM is exactly equivalent to an alternative theory 
> that leaves out parallel worlds. Even though the difference may be almost 
> 100% insignificant FAPP, it's not exactly 100% even in the macroscopic realm.
> 
> The argument against the existence of

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 22:19, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of?
> 
> You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that have 
> high organized complexity of a certain kind), many of which are 
> representations of external objects.

External object are how universal number organise their continuation in 
arithmetic. There are no “external physical object” in the ontology.

With Mechanism, to refer to a physical world is no better than to refer to a 
god. It cannot work without adding non Turing emulable ability to the brain. It 
requites the abandon of Mechanism, and thus of Darwin.

With mechanism, on the contrary, Darwin type of explanation is extended up to 
the origin of the physical laws, through the first person consciousness 
selection of histories in arithmetic. That explains the many-world aspect of 
the physical reality, and the math confirms the quantum logical structures of 
the personally accessible histories, including why a subset is sharable among 
stable collection of machine.

The quantum is “just” the digital seen from inside. It is the many-worlds 
interpretation of arithmetic, made by almost all universal numbers (almost all 
= all except a finite number of exception, which are topologically isolated and 
of measure nul).

Bruno

> If there are no representations of your skull it is probably because they 
> have not been useful in evolution. It is more useful to be conscious of what 
> is going on around your body than of the interior of your skull.
> 
> We can't rule out that your consciousness is not located in your brain and 
> your brain just serves as a kind of preliminary processor of sensory data 
> that somehow sends the preprocessed data to some other object (soul?) where 
> your consciousness is located but there's not much evidence for that.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/eba612c7-b8d1-4e15-836c-d11ca4eac097n%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/5BFF1A72-556E-400A-948B-E0A5679E4650%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?


> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales > > wrote:
>> 
>>  >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you can't measure 
>> consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch.
>> 
>> > In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a dictionary:
>> 
>> consciousness noun 
>> I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I long-ago 
>> realized that neither she nor the lexicographers who wrote that big thick 
>> book are the fonts of all wisdom.
>> >> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and because 
>> >> Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct, consciousness must be an 
>> >> inevitable byproduct of intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is not a 
>> >> noun, it's a word that describes what a noun (in this case the brain) 
>> >> does, in other words consciousness is an adjective.
>> 
>> > You mean a verb then, no?
>> 
>> I think adjective fits the bill a little better, I think Tomas Pales is the 
>> way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way.
>> 
>>  > consciousness is a spatiotemporal object.
>> 
>> I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would be like 
>> asking where the number 11 or the color yellow  or "fast" is located.  If my 
>> brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football game from Detroit and I'm 
>> listening to a friend in Australia on my telephone and I'm thinking about 
>> The Great Wall of China would it  make sense to say my consciousness is 
>> really located inside a box made of bone mounted on my shoulders when I have 
>> no conscious experience of being in a bone box on my shoulders? I don't 
>> think so.
> Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious experience 
> at least temporarily. 
> 
Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point of view 
of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does not make sense, as 
it is associated to infinitely many truing universal relation.

The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be proved both 
with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial combinatory algebra (like a 
model of arithmetic).


> So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness.
> 

What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations.

Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any model (in the 
logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic (Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz)).

I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing, but 
“appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get contradictory when 
associated or singularised through any supplementary axioms, even the induction 
axioms used to define what an observer can be.

You assume some ontological commitment inconsistent with Mechanism here.


Bruno


> Brent
> 
>> 
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> 
>> vxq0
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/CAJPayv1QfN_EVXVRWNGB4yx4-_SbP-S-HebZO-%3D%2BT3Wjw9uFvQ%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/6e3e859b-2944-84c9-7f96-fb2d27a6b0e8%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/F67056B1-FA63-47E2-B9F5-EC511806068D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?