Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:



On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount
to unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference
between being unable to perfectly predict the time
evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is
in-principle? What is the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in
QM? AG


I asked you first.

Brent


IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is
that he thought acausality violated locality and/or realism.
For example, the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has
a definite position and momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP
because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. AG


I asked you  "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored
and just asked another question.

Brent


But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant
probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying
realities are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and
deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave theory). Since, at heart, you're an
instrumentalist, I assume the distinction for you is
meaningless.  AG


You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying
realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why
they are just interpretations.  The only use I see for
interpretations with no empirical difference is they may suggest
better theories.  I see no other reason to prefer one
interpretation over another.  You might as well introduce fairies
into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which one is really real.

Brent


So if someone, like Bohr, comes up with a lawless universe, that's 
fine with you; or do you deny the lawlessness? AG


A lawless universe that is predictable per the Schroedinger equation??  
What does that mean?


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/2937b15c-96c8-c6e7-c39c-927b407623fd%40gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:09 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 4/17/2022 1:45 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> Just as in Schroedinger's famous example with the cat, you need a "box"
> and an observer outside, in order to make sense of the cat being in an
> entangled superposition. Instead of a superobserver, we can do with an
> impersonal quantum description (in any chosen frame of reference), if you
> prefer.
>
>
> The only purpose of the box in Schroedinger's thought experiment was to
> put off the observers perception.  Really the thought experiment is over
> when the radioactive decay occurs.  That atom has transitioned to a
> different nuclear state which is entangled with and recorded in the
> environment.
>

Yes. Schrodinger had the cat in a box to emphasize the idea that the cat
was in a macro-superposition of alive/dead. This misled Wigner to the
extent that he thought the state collapsed only when the box was opened.
All of this was made redundant when it was realized that decoherence
 rendered the state definite almost instantaneously. Saibal makes the same
mistake when he claims that Alice, after her measurement, is still in a
superposition until Bob sees her result. The idea that the superposition
still exists since decoherence is only FAPP is something of a red herring
-- in MWI, Alice has branched according to her result into up and down
branches that no longer interfere. There is no macro-superposition.

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/CAFxXSLSajQ3P9Yx4dpPxVSPetkOLBE_VY0cYU%2B5646QOOqacnw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/17/2022 1:45 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:

Just clarifications.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 2:15:48 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

But the purpose of randomizing the polarizer settings using photon
from sources on opposite sides of the universe is to prevent
anyone from knowing both settings before a measurement.


The point of THIS example is to investigate the issue of non-locality 
of splits in a MWI; not to test the Bell inequalities. Surely, if we 
aim for the latter, we will randomise the polariser settings.


I'm not sure I see any function for your superobserver anyway. 
Are you sure you need him?


Just as in Schroedinger's famous example with the cat, you need a 
"box" and an observer outside, in order to make sense of the cat being 
in an entangled superposition. Instead of a superobserver, we can do 
with an impersonal quantum description (in any chosen frame of 
reference), if you prefer.


The only purpose of the box in Schroedinger's thought experiment was to 
put off the observers perception.  Really the thought experiment is over 
when the radioactive decay occurs.  That atom has transitioned to a 
different nuclear state which is entangled with and recorded in the 
environment.


Brent


I hope that these inadequacies in my exposition will not prevent you 
from focusing on the "Conclusion" about the locality of splits!


George K.


--
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/eeb80e54-6fee-6978-0d63-0ed5da7ca70b%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
 IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
 the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG


 Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
 huge difference?

 Brent

>>>
>>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you first.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
>> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
>> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
>> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
>> AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
>> asked another question.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant 
> probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying realities 
> are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave 
> theory). Since, at heart, you're an instrumentalist, I assume the 
> distinction for you is meaningless.  AG 
>
>
> You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying 
> realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they are 
> just interpretations.  The only use I see for interpretations with no 
> empirical difference is they may suggest better theories.  I see no other 
> reason to prefer one interpretation over another.  You might as well 
> introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which one is 
> really real.
>
> Brent
>

So if someone, like Bohr, comes up with a lawless universe, that's fine 
with you; or do you deny the lawlessness? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b148147-f594-48b2-8432-46669f7d3c6fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[George Kahrimanis]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:35:22 PM UTC+3 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>

I think I have come to a crisp understanding of this issue, which I want to 
submit to you. However, we must take into consideration that the notion of 
probability many scientists have these days is very different from the one 
implied in Einstein's comment "God doesn't play dice".

Einstein seems to have a good old-fashioned understanding of probability 
based on rolling the dice, shuffling the deck, and so on, which has also 
been formalised as "Kolmogorov complexity". That is, a shuffling 
complicated enough to make it technically impossible to run the needed 
calculations in the next 15 seconds, say, in which I am obliged to play my 
hand. Of course I trust that no other players in this game can run such 
calculations in the prescribed time (I trust with "moral certainty", not 
with absolute certainty).

This outlook of probability is incompatible with certain currently popular 
views of probability. For one, entropy considerations are irrelevant in 
general, unless when they just describe shuffling in other words. So-called 
Bayesian priors are also baseless strictly speaking, though they do serve 
in a "let us try this" approach.

One more notion to shed is that of propability issuing from ANY theoretical 
probabilistic model, for example conventional QM. (Surely, if you are 
comfortable with the latter, then Einstein's comment is meaningless!) I 
cite an important (I think) philosophical work by Wolfgang Schwarz: "No 
Interpretation of Probability" Erkenntnis 83, 1195–1212 (2018), 
. He argued that such models do 
NOT issue probability; they issue just numbers which the users ACCEPT AS 
probabilities -- in whatever interpretation of probability one assumes as 
fundamental. This is the key to understanding Einstein's comment.

So, in plain words, Einstein's comment means the following. If the 
interpretation of QM treats normalised measures as probabilities, we need 
to understand this in terms of our basic notion of probability, that is 
shuffling the deck or rolling the dice. So in each measurement someone must 
roll dice or something, in order that probability will arise. Since QM does 
not allow for such a mechanism, we are left to trusting that probabilities 
issued by QM are as good AS IF generated by a randomising mechanism (of a 
familiar kind). This "as if" creates a doubt whether the notion of 
probability from QM is equivalent to that from shuffling. This is not a 
silly question, because it has relevance to decision theory (in particular, 
on whether Maximisation of Expected Utility is a rationally justified 
method).

George K.

-- 
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/2058484b-5b5f-4e76-9458-13c7a73892dbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Unspoken Reasons for Russio-Ukraine War: An Unawakened Consciousness Problem

[Brent Meeker]

Could somebody disable Benjamin's hyphen key?

Brent

On 4/18/2022 1:32 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]   References given at the bottom.
NYTimes.com: "Don't Just Freeze Russia's Money. Seize It. " The WAMP 
defined below knows that the unspoken reason for the Russo-Ukraine war is moral not 
political- an unenergized bio dark-matter twin body problem.
" Western nations commit genocide upon other countries that refuse to hold gay pride parades." Says the Orthodox 
Patriarch of Russia. "Ukraine's LGBTQ is forced to confront this as a threat to its own community" reports NY 
Times. Russia was frightened by the decrepit Western cultural onslaught on their traditional institutions especially the 
school systems. So they amend their Constitution to ban LGBTQ agenda. "Super Power" America & the West has 
long forgotten their Patriarchal-Prophetic-Aostolic-Augustinian-Athanesian-Reformation- Puritan-"Great Awakening" 
roots which have now become largely  a terra incognita (verisimilar to Judges 2:10). Instead they conformed to 
Marxist-Socialist-pagan globalism which Russia has rejected. The cowardice of unawakened consciousness created a leadership 
vacuum which Russia now presumably decided to fill.
Philip Benjamin
(Nonconformist to Marxist pagan globalism)
 
  NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-queer-activists.html  "But the war that started when Russia invaded on Feb. 24 has forced Ukraine's L.G.B.T.Q. movement to confront a threat not only to national sovereignty, but also to its own community. A pro-Russian puppet government, they say, would be less supportive of the L.G.B.T.Q. agenda."

 https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/  Russian Orthodox bishop Kirill, 
the official Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, came out with a rather wild claim about 
"the West" during a sermon, saying that Western nations commit genocide upon 
other countries that refuse to hold gay pride parades. No, really.
https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/ 
https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/
"In a sermon held on Sunday, Russian Church leader, Kirill justified Ukraine's invasion 
& blamed gay pride parades for Russia's invasion of the war-hit Ukraine". Written By 
Ajay Sharma
CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-08-22/  March 8, 2022. "Russian 
Orthodox Church alleges gay pride parades were part of the reason for Ukraine war   From CNNs Delia Gallagher in 
Rome... Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, a long-time ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that the 
conflict in Donbas is about "a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who 
claim world power." The "test" of which side you are on, said Kirill, is whether your country is willing 
to hold gay pride parades. "In order to enter the club of those countries, it is necessary to hold a gay pride 
parade. Not to make a political statement, 'we are with you,' not to sign any agreements, but to hold a gay parade. And 
we know how people resist these demands and how this resistance is suppressed by force," Kirill said during a 
sermon in Moscow. "
  
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/world/europe/putin-proposes-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage.html

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putins-amendments-revere-god-ban-sex-marriages-
Russia bans same sex marriages. Russian President Vladimir Putin has 
submitted a slew of proposed amendments to the country's constitution that 
include a mention of God and describe marriage as a heterosexual union.By 
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press

To: Everything List 
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don't Just Freeze Russia's Money. Seize It. "Come in 
Telmo! America to Telmo!!" Monday, April 18, 2022 9:42 AM




--
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/977b35a3-e432-e0b4-2618-da8357a38033%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:



On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between
being unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of
a system, and it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is
in-principle?  What is the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG


I asked you first.

Brent


IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he
thought acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example,
the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite
position and momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP
simply limits what we can measure. AG


I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and
just asked another question.

Brent


But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant 
probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying 
realities are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and 
deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave theory). Since, at heart, you're an 
instrumentalist, I assume the distinction for you is meaningless.  AG


You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying 
realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they are 
just interpretations.  The only use I see for interpretations with no 
empirical difference is they may suggest better theories.  I see no 
other reason to prefer one interpretation over another.  You might as 
well introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which 
one is really real.


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/c0c67139-4239-ad0d-d7be-dc0f2783e4c1%40gmail.com.

Unspoken Reasons for Russio-Ukraine War: An Unawakened Consciousness Problem

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]   References given at the bottom.
   NYTimes.com: "Don't Just Freeze Russia's Money. Seize It. " The WAMP defined 
below knows that the unspoken reason for the Russo-Ukraine war is moral not 
political- an unenergized bio dark-matter twin body problem.
" Western nations commit genocide upon other countries that refuse to hold gay 
pride parades." Says the Orthodox Patriarch of Russia. "Ukraine's LGBTQ is 
forced to confront this as a threat to its own community" reports NY Times. 
Russia was frightened by the decrepit Western cultural onslaught on their 
traditional institutions especially the school systems. So they amend their 
Constitution to ban LGBTQ agenda. "Super Power" America & the West has long 
forgotten their 
Patriarchal-Prophetic-Aostolic-Augustinian-Athanesian-Reformation- 
Puritan-"Great Awakening" roots which have now become largely  a terra 
incognita (verisimilar to Judges 2:10). Instead they conformed to 
Marxist-Socialist-pagan globalism which Russia has rejected. The cowardice of 
unawakened consciousness created a leadership vacuum which Russia now 
presumably decided to fill.
Philip Benjamin 
(Nonconformist to Marxist pagan globalism)

 NY Times. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/world/russia-ukraine-queer-activists.html  
"But the war that started when Russia invaded on Feb. 24 has forced Ukraine's 
L.G.B.T.Q. movement to confront a threat not only to national sovereignty, but 
also to its own community. A pro-Russian puppet government, they say, would be 
less supportive of the L.G.B.T.Q. agenda." 
https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/  Russian Orthodox bishop 
Kirill, the official Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, came out with a rather wild 
claim about "the West" during a sermon, saying that Western nations commit 
genocide upon other countries that refuse to hold gay pride parades. No, really.
https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/ 
https://god.dailydot.com/russian-bishop-gay-pride/
"In a sermon held on Sunday, Russian Church leader, Kirill justified Ukraine's 
invasion & blamed gay pride parades for Russia's invasion of the war-hit 
Ukraine". Written By Ajay Sharma
   CNN. 
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-08-22/  
March 8, 2022. "Russian Orthodox Church alleges gay pride parades were part of 
the reason for Ukraine war   From CNNs Delia Gallagher in Rome... Patriarch 
Kirill of Moscow, a long-time ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on 
Sunday that the conflict in Donbas is about "a fundamental rejection of the 
so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power." The 
"test" of which side you are on, said Kirill, is whether your country is 
willing to hold gay pride parades. "In order to enter the club of those 
countries, it is necessary to hold a gay pride parade. Not to make a political 
statement, 'we are with you,' not to sign any agreements, but to hold a gay 
parade. And we know how people resist these demands and how this resistance is 
suppressed by force," Kirill said during a sermon in Moscow. " 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/world/europe/putin-proposes-constitutional-ban-on-gay-marriage.html
   
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putins-amendments-revere-god-ban-sex-marriages-
Russia bans same sex marriages. Russian President Vladimir Putin has 
submitted a slew of proposed amendments to the country's constitution that 
include a mention of God and describe marriage as a heterosexual union.By 
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press

To: Everything List 
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don't Just Freeze Russia's Money. Seize It. "Come in 
Telmo! America to Telmo!!" Monday, April 18, 2022 9:42 AM
 

-- 
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/SJ0PR14MB5264A74F09E53F2CB95B222CA8F39%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>
>
> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
> asked another question.
>
> Brent
>

And you ignored the additional information/interpretation that I offered. 
Oh, FWIW, according to Scerir QM is half-pregnant. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34db0794-c9ad-4750-a3bf-bb89e974a532n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>
>
> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
> asked another question.
>
> Brent
>

But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant 
probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying realities 
are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave 
theory). Since, at heart, you're an instrumentalist, I assume the 
distinction for you is meaningless.  AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19a9b203-74d3-46df-8421-f157c05fcfa8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re[2]: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[scerir via Everything List]

A deterministic clockwork universe vs a lawless universe (see Svozil, 
Arxiv,2000). I think QM is in between.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Lunedì, 18 Aprile 2022, 02:35PM +02:00 da 
Alan Grayson  agrayson2...@gmail.com :

>
>
>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson
>>  wrote:
>>>I was aware of the limitation on  precision  implied by the
>>>  HUP. I was addressing whether  simultaneous measurements
>>>  are possible despite the HUP. I think they are possible. 
>>The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations. 
>>Each destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate
>>variables to arbitrary precision.  But repeating the destructive
>>measurements on exactly the same prepared system will then give a
>>scatter of answers which satisfies the HUP.
>>
>>
>>>But
>>>  my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible.
>>>  IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly
>>>  predict the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>
>>Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is
>>the huge difference?
>>
>>Brent
>
> So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>>
>>>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at
>>>  6:19:44 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle limits the accuracy of determining initial
conditions even if the physics of evolution is perfectly
deterministic.

I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a
courtesy.  If you don't want it addressed...why post it.

Brent


On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>No. I didn't read your original
>  post on this thread. But I see the authors assume quantum
>  fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get what
>  you pay for. In my example, there surely are  caused 
> probabilities, even if we don't have complete
>  understanding of the initial conditions. But why address
>  my issue if a link satisfies you? AG
>
>On Sunday, April 17,
>  2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6  meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>A simple example of your
>>>  point is a gas at some temperature and pressure,
>>>  confined in some volume. For a given particle in
>>>  the ensemble, we can't determine its exact path
>>>  because we lack information about its
>>>  interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we
>>>  could determine its exact path, and any
>>>  uncertainties in that information would translate
>>>  into uncertainties in its path. But inherent
>>>  randomness in QM is different and probably has
>>>  nothing to do with the UP. 
>>Did you read the paper I cited?:   https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>
>>Brent
>>
>>>For example, for a small
>>>  uncertainty in position, there is a large
>>>  uncertainty in velocity, so we  can get
>>>  simultaneous measurements of position and
>>>  velocity, but the latter will manifest large
>>>  fluctuations for succeeding measurements. Thus,
>>>  the "inherent randomness" in QM is the assumption
>>>  that every individual trial or outcome of a
>>>  measurement is UNcaused; that is, the particular
>>>  outcome can't be traced to some prior state --
>>>  what AE called God playing dice with the universe.
>>>  AG
>>> 
>>>On Saturday,
>>>  April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6  
>>> meeke...@gmail.com wrote:; 
Consider the converse.  When you
comprehend some physical evolution, is it
essential that it be deterministic.  Every
event has many causes, do you have to know
every one of them to comprehend it?  Think
of all the things you would have to say did
NOT happen in order that your comprehension
be complete.  The way I look at it, we call
classical mechanics deterministic only
because  most of 

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system,
and it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? 
What is the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG


I asked you first.

Brent


IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he 
thought acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the 
Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and 
momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits 
what we can measure. AG


I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
asked another question.


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/3820362a-7c02-afdf-50ea-137800e6376b%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>

Or maybe AE objected to the Copenhagen view that properties don't exist 
prior to measurement. This would certainly be acausal since all processes 
take finite time intervals to occur, which Copenhagen implicitly denies. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e764522b-bc90-4cf1-9f68-25b506a68662n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, 
>> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the 
>> time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>
>>
>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>> huge difference?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>
>
> I asked you first.
>
> Brent
>

IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9f6a7a2-5f4e-4ea2-96be-e48c3d300285n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system, and
it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is
the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG


I asked you first.

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/ec8732cf-ed77-f66f-a7e4-075abef974cc%40gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Mo, 18. Apr 2022, um 13:29, schrieb spudboy...@aol.com:
> Much thanks Telmo for your informative reply. At this level of society, for I 
> suspect neither of us are "elites," it's important to trade information, 
> scientific for sure, but also societal, too,

I agree!

Telmo

> as this *Black Swan* event that Putin started years ago, and made 10 X worse 
> this February.  
> 
> Much thanks,
> 
> Mitch
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Telmo Menezes 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 12:09 pm
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come 
> in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"
> 
> 
> Am So, 17. Apr 2022, um 16:17, schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:
>> 
>> I am asking Telmo to sort of give back with a short sense of what you feel 
>> and think about Sweden deciding to join NATO. This would include Finland as 
>> well, despite Putin's threats. This is an open placation so anyone can 
>> answer, but it'd be better than a Yank coughing out our ideologies. Anyone 
>> from the EU or anywhere else is sure welcome to give forth opinions on this. 
>> Where does this leave you and your family and friends? With regard to Putin, 
>> what do you need?  
> 
> I'm not sure that my opinion matters, or if it is representative of anything, 
> but here it goes:
> 
> I'm completely in favor of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. In fact, I always 
> saw them as "de facto" members. They are both member states of the EU, so I 
> believe that a direct aggression to any of these countries by Russia would 
> mean direct military engagement of the west, NATO or no NATO. There's no way 
> France, for example, would just stand buy and watch Putin bite a chunk out of 
> the EU. And I believe Putin believes the same.
> 
> To be honest, until recently I assumed that Sweden and Finland were not NATO 
> members for cultural reasons. Perhaps a certain Nordic sense of independence. 
> I now realize that this was mostly an appeasement strategy toward Russia. In 
> this case I am still in favor of them joining, because I do not believe 
> anymore that Putin can be appeased.
> 
> To be honest, I am much more worried about Ukraine joining the EU hastily. It 
> is a huge country and I suspect it is still quite far away from economic and 
> even cultural alignment with the EU. I mean, let's be honest, they have a 
> neonazi gang as an official government force (the Azov battalion). I believe 
> that granting them membership to early could put the EU project under immense 
> stress (of the sort already posed by Hungary, but to a much larger degree) -- 
> this possibly combined with the perfect storm of the German economy 
> collapsing in the face of the unavoidable step of suspending all gas imports 
> from Russia and the possible election of Le Pen in France (which could mean 
> that the EU would then have one of its most powerful member states working 
> against its interests from the inside).
> 
> At the same time, perhaps this is just one of those moments were History will 
> not wait and the only option is to rise to the occasion. It is also true that 
> the EU seems to grow from each crisis it survives.
> 
> More generally, I think that all of us (the west), with all of our flaws, 
> represent a way of life that is opposed by the powerful dictatorships of 
> Russia and China. If we value and wish to protect this way of life, we must 
> stick together and be smart.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Caveat: I will probably respond to your thoughts on all this, though I will 
>> try to do so respectfully, which will be a first for me. My reason is I feel 
>> I need a different perspective from people living closer to the fighting.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> I don't feel like I am "close to the fighting" in any way. There's still 
> Poland between me and the war. I am living my perfectly normal life. Perhaps 
> I just feel a bit more grateful than usual for this normalcy.
> 
> The only way in which I feel close to the events is by the presence of 
> refugees in my neighborhood. Many cars with Ukrainian license plates around. 
> A hotel around the corner from my house has been turned into a temporary 
> refugee center. A lot of people donate food, clothes, etc. Some of them like 
> to play table tennis with the locals in the park nearby.
> 
>> Otherwise, please continue with quantum modal realism and if Alice & Bob 
>> teleport between London and Moscow, will they be arrested by the FSB? 
> 
> Yes and no. :)
> 
> Be well spud (and everyone else!)
> T.
> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Clark 
>> To: spudboy...@aol.com
>> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; 
>> meekerbr...@gmail.com 
>> Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:28 am
>> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 7:59 PM  wrote:
>> 
>>> *> Rather than deny my assertions you have reinforced them JC. Stalin 
>>> cannot hurt you if one is Stalin.*
>> 
>> Stalin 

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

[Telmo Menezes]

>> To be honest, until recently I assumed that Sweden and Finland were not NATO 
>> members for cultural reasons. Perhaps a certain Nordic sense of 
>> independence. I now realize that this was mostly an appeasement strategy 
>> toward Russia. In this case I am still in favor of them joining, because I 
>> do not believe anymore that Putin can be appeased.
> 
> I wonder if the Finns would like to take back the territory Russia took from 
> them in the 1940 Winter War?
> 

I don't know, but I have the impression that Finns tend to be pragmatic about 
such matters.

> 
>> 
>> To be honest, I am much more worried about Ukraine joining the EU hastily. 
>> It is a huge country and I suspect it is still quite far away from economic 
>> and even cultural alignment with the EU. I mean, let's be honest, they have 
>> a neonazi gang as an official government force (the Azov battalion).
> 
> How is that consistent with electing a Jew president? I realize the Jews in 
> Ukraine were persecuted under Stalin and many emigrated to Israel when the 
> USSR collapsed.  But is this neo-nazism real or is Putin's propaganda?
> 

It is obviously the case that there is no neonazi majority in Ukraine, or even 
close to that. As you say, the election of a Jew president makes it pretty 
obvious that Ukraine is not a nazi state. That much is Putin's propaganda. But 
it is also true that neonazis do exist, and that a neonazi military 
organization became an official state force in 2014. You can read all the 
details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

I believe that the above Wikipedia article is well source and includes 
references to assessments by American intelligence on this matter.

I'm sure that Zalensky is not happy with the Azov Batallion and vice-versa, but 
for now they both have more pressing matters to worry about. If you want an 
even more absurd factoid: some weeks ago a Portuguese court agreed to allow a 
convicted Portuguese neonazi to travel to Ukraine to join the resistance (and 
it was clear he was in contact with neonazis in Ukraine, who are probably 
linked through international networks):

https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/tribunal-autoriza-viagem-de-mario-machado-a-ucrania-por-situacao-humanitaria

I think there is some context here, that perhaps Americans do not fully 
appreciate (and apologies if you do): firstly, that the URSS created a 
narrative where nazis were all from the west, and that the peoples that were 
subsequently assimilated by the soviet space were completely innocent. Germans 
who were brought up in the RDA were indoctrinated to believe that west Germans 
were solely responsible for nazi crimes. On one hand, this remains to this day 
a divisive issue in German society (even though mostly present in the East). On 
the other hand, it seems to be paradoxically correlated with the appearance of 
neonazi movements in post-soviet spaces.

Another important subtly here is that what Putin and his regime means by "nazi" 
(and again, I believe this is inherited from the soviet perspective) is not 
exactly the same that the west means by "nazi". For Putin, the defining 
characteristic of a nazi is being anti-Russia, and when we accuses someone of 
"nationalism", what he refers to is to the desire of having a nation 
independent from Russia, which in his view is the only legitimate power in the 
region.

Telmo


> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> I believe that granting them membership to early could put the EU project 
>> under immense stress (of the sort already posed by Hungary, but to a much 
>> larger degree) -- this possibly combined with the perfect storm of the 
>> German economy collapsing in the face of the unavoidable step of suspending 
>> all gas imports from Russia and the possible election of Le Pen in France 
>> (which could mean that the EU would then have one of its most powerful 
>> member states working against its interests from the inside).
>> 
>> At the same time, perhaps this is just one of those moments were History 
>> will not wait and the only option is to rise to the occasion. It is also 
>> true that the EU seems to grow from each crisis it survives.
>> 
>> More generally, I think that all of us (the west), with all of our flaws, 
>> represent a way of life that is opposed by the powerful dictatorships of 
>> Russia and China. If we value and wish to protect this way of life, we must 
>> stick together and be smart.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Caveat: I will probably respond to your thoughts on all this, though I will 
>>> try to do so respectfully, which will be a first for me. My reason is I 
>>> feel I need a different perspective from people living closer to the 
>>> fighting.
>> 
>> Of course.
>> 
>> I don't feel like I am "close to the fighting" in any way. There's still 
>> Poland between me and the war. I am living my perfectly normal life. Perhaps 
>> I just feel a bit more grateful than usual for this normalcy.
>> 
>> The only way in which I feel close to the 

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was 
> addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite the 
> HUP. I think they are possible. 
>
>
> The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations.  Each 
> destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate variables to 
> arbitrary precision.  But repeating the destructive measurements on exactly 
> the same prepared system will then give a scatter of answers which 
> satisfies the HUP.
>
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, 
> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the 
> time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>
>
> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
> huge difference?
>
> Brent
>

 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

>
>
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits 
>> the accuracy of determining initial conditions even if the physics of 
>> evolution is perfectly deterministic.
>>
>> I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a courtesy.  If 
>> you don't want it addressed...why post it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> No. I didn't read your original post on this thread. But I see the 
>> authors assume quantum fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get 
>> what you pay for. In my example, there surely are *caused* 
>> probabilities, even if we don't have complete understanding of the initial 
>> conditions. But why address my issue if a link satisfies you? AG
>>
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and 
>>> pressure, confined in some volume. For a given particle in the ensemble, we 
>>> can't determine its exact path because we lack information about its 
>>> interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we could determine its exact 
>>> path, and any uncertainties in that information would translate into 
>>> uncertainties in its path. But inherent randomness in QM is different and 
>>> probably has nothing to do with the UP. 
>>>
>>> Did you read the paper I cited?:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large 
>>> uncertainty in velocity, so we *can* get simultaneous measurements of 
>>> position and velocity, but the latter will manifest large fluctuations for 
>>> succeeding measurements. Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is the 
>>> assumption that every individual trial or outcome of a measurement is 
>>> UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome can't be traced to some prior 
>>> state -- what AE called God playing dice with the universe. AG
>>>  
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:; 
>>>
 Consider the converse.  When you comprehend some physical evolution, is 
 it essential that it be deterministic.  Every event has many causes, do 
 you 
 have to know every one of them to comprehend it?  Think of all the things 
 you would have to say did NOT happen in order that your comprehension be 
 complete.  The way I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic 
 only because *most of the time* there are a few (not a bazillion) 
 factors we can *approximately determine* in advance, so that an* 
 almost* certain prediction, *within a range of uncertainty*, is 
 possible.  Even within strict determinism there are at this very moment 
 gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which cannot be 
 predicted but which might influence your thoughts and instruments.

 Brent


 On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic 
 process is comprehensible. AG

 On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
 many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" 
 nightmare.


 Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of 

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The Russian excuse has some truth of neonazis. Look up Ukraine-Bandera if 
anyone gets a chance?
The neonazis are large in Mother Russia as 
well.https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover
There's neonazis in the US too, (Duh!) and have evidently volunteered to Russia 
and Ukraine to gain war experience to use back 
here!https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war/

Putin's excuse was goose steppers, but it's his exploitation of the weakness of 
the US, EU, everyone else, that generated his actions. 
Ok thanks all!
For this Rep Fascist (Rep-Fa?) I will goose step down to the supermarket to 
purchase some goods possibly imported from the 3rd world by imperialist forces. 
Maybe, I shall hum the Horst Wessel Lied while I get some more coffee pods? 
Meanwhile, lets all consider some ways to dodge Vlad's nukes as in brain power 
suggestions? We're supposed to be brainy? Let's be brainy enough to push 
against this existential problem. 


-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in 
Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

 
 
 On 4/17/2022 9:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
  
 
#yiv1015067542 p.yiv1015067542MsoNormal, #yiv1015067542 
p.yiv1015067542MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}#yiv1015067542 p.yiv1015067542MsoNormal, 
#yiv1015067542 p.yiv1015067542MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}Am So, 17. Apr 2022, um 
16:17, schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:
  
  
  I am asking Telmo to sort of give back with a short sense of what you feel 
and think about Sweden deciding to join NATO. This would include Finland as 
well, despite Putin's threats. This is an open placation so anyone can answer, 
but it'd be better than a Yank coughing out our ideologies. Anyone from the EU 
or anywhere else is sure welcome to give forth opinions on this. Where does 
this leave you and your family and friends? With regard to Putin, what do you 
need?  
   
 
  I'm not sure that my opinion matters, or if it is representative of anything, 
but here it goes:
  
  I'm completely in favor of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. In fact, I always 
saw them as "de facto" members. They are both member states of the EU, so I 
believe that a direct aggression to any of these countries by Russia would mean 
direct military engagement of the west, NATO or no NATO. There's no way France, 
for example, would just stand buy and watch Putin bite a chunk out of the EU. 
And I believe Putin believes the same.
  
  To be honest, until recently I assumed that Sweden and Finland were not NATO 
members for cultural reasons. Perhaps a certain Nordic sense of independence. I 
now realize that this was mostly an appeasement strategy toward Russia. In this 
case I am still in favor of them joining, because I do not believe anymore that 
Putin can be appeased.
  
 I wonder if the Finns would like to take back the territory Russia took from 
them in the 1940 Winter War?
 
 
 
  To be honest, I am much more worried about Ukraine joining the EU hastily. It 
is a huge country and I suspect it is still quite far away from economic and 
even cultural alignment with the EU. I mean, let's be honest, they have a 
neonazi gang as an official government force (the Azov battalion).  
 
 How is that consistent with electing a Jew president?  I realize the Jews in 
Ukraine were persecuted under Stalin and many emigrated to Israel when the USSR 
collapsed.  But is this neo-nazism real or is Putin's propaganda?
 
 Brent
 
 
 I believe that granting them membership to early could put the EU project 
under immense stress (of the sort already posed by Hungary, but to a much 
larger degree) -- this possibly combined with the perfect storm of the German 
economy collapsing in the face of the unavoidable step of suspending all gas 
imports from Russia and the possible election of Le Pen in France (which could 
mean that the EU would then have one of its most powerful member states working 
against its interests from the inside).
  
  At the same time, perhaps this is just one of those moments were History will 
not wait and the only option is to rise to the occasion. It is also true that 
the EU seems to grow from each crisis it survives.
  
  More generally, I think that all of us (the west), with all of our flaws, 
represent a way of life that is opposed by the powerful dictatorships of Russia 
and China. If we value and wish to protect this way of life, we must stick 
together and be smart.
  
  
  
  
  Caveat: I will probably respond to your thoughts on all this, though I will 
try to do so respectfully, which will be a first for me. My reason is I feel I 
need a different perspective from people living closer to the fighting.
   
 
  Of course.
  
  I don't feel like I am "close to the fighting" in any way. There's still 
Poland between me and the war. I am living my 

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[Alan Grayson]

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was 
> addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite the 
> HUP. I think they are possible. 
>
>
> The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations.  Each 
> destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate variables to 
> arbitrary precision.  But repeating the destructive measurements on exactly 
> the same prepared system will then give a scatter of answers which 
> satisfies the HUP.
>
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, 
> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the 
> time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>
>
> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
> huge difference?
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits 
>> the accuracy of determining initial conditions even if the physics of 
>> evolution is perfectly deterministic.
>>
>> I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a courtesy.  If 
>> you don't want it addressed...why post it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> No. I didn't read your original post on this thread. But I see the 
>> authors assume quantum fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get 
>> what you pay for. In my example, there surely are *caused* 
>> probabilities, even if we don't have complete understanding of the initial 
>> conditions. But why address my issue if a link satisfies you? AG
>>
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and 
>>> pressure, confined in some volume. For a given particle in the ensemble, we 
>>> can't determine its exact path because we lack information about its 
>>> interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we could determine its exact 
>>> path, and any uncertainties in that information would translate into 
>>> uncertainties in its path. But inherent randomness in QM is different and 
>>> probably has nothing to do with the UP. 
>>>
>>> Did you read the paper I cited?:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large 
>>> uncertainty in velocity, so we *can* get simultaneous measurements of 
>>> position and velocity, but the latter will manifest large fluctuations for 
>>> succeeding measurements. Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is the 
>>> assumption that every individual trial or outcome of a measurement is 
>>> UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome can't be traced to some prior 
>>> state -- what AE called God playing dice with the universe. AG
>>>  
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:; 
>>>
 Consider the converse.  When you comprehend some physical evolution, is 
 it essential that it be deterministic.  Every event has many causes, do 
 you 
 have to know every one of them to comprehend it?  Think of all the things 
 you would have to say did NOT happen in order that your comprehension be 
 complete.  The way I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic 
 only because *most of the time* there are a few (not a bazillion) 
 factors we can *approximately determine* in advance, so that an* 
 almost* certain prediction, *within a range of uncertainty*, is 
 possible.  Even within strict determinism there are at this very moment 
 gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which cannot be 
 predicted but which might influence your thoughts and instruments.

 Brent


 On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic 
 process is comprehensible. AG

 On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
 many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" 
 nightmare.


 Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Not to choke the flow of the convo, but some years ago Albrecht also worked on 
the Observer issue and time via re-examining the work of Ludwig Boltzmann and 
his Boltzmann Brain. Please continue. 
http://clearlyexplained.com/boltzmann-brains/index.html


-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

 
 
 On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
  
 
 A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and pressure, 
confined in some volume. For a given particle in the ensemble, we can't 
determine its exact path because we lack information about its interactions. 
But if we had that knowledge, we could determine its exact path, and any 
uncertainties in that information would translate into uncertainties in its 
path. But inherent randomness in QM is different and probably has nothing to do 
with the UP. Did you read the paper I cited?:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
 
 Brent
 
 
For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large uncertainty 
in velocity, so we can get simultaneous measurements of position and velocity, 
but the latter will manifest large fluctuations for succeeding measurements. 
Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is the assumption that every individual 
trial or outcome of a measurement is UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome 
can't be traced to some prior state -- what AE called God playing dice with the 
universe. AG
  
  On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:; 
  
  Consider the converse.  When you comprehend some physical evolution, is it 
essential that it be deterministic.  Every event has many causes, do you have 
to know every one of them to comprehend it?  Think of all the things you would 
have to say did NOT happen in order that your comprehension be complete.  The 
way I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic only because most 
of the time there are a few (not a bazillion) factors we can approximately 
determine in advance, so that an almost certain prediction, within a range of 
uncertainty, is possible.  Even within strict determinism there are at this 
very moment gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which cannot 
be predicted but which might influence your thoughts and instruments.
 
 Brent 
 
 On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic process is 
comprehensible. AG
 
  On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
  
 
 
  On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
  
 
 
  On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
 
 On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
  
 
   
 Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the many-world 
formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.
  
 
 Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical randomness 
we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really make any 
difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect and Phillips 
have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even nominally classical 
dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3  
 
  True randomness implies unintelligibility; that is, no existing physical 
process for causing the results of measurements. AG  
 
   "It happened at random in accordance with a Poisson process with rate 
parameter 0.123" seems perfectly intelligible to me.  There is a physical 
description of the system with allows you to predict that, including the value 
of the rate parameter.  It only differs from deterministic physics in that it 
doesn't say when the event happens. 
 
 I always wonder if people who have this dogmatic rejection of randomness 
understand that quantum randomness is very narrow.  Planck's constant is very 
small and it introduces randomness, but with a definite distribution and on 
certain variables.  It's not "anything can happen" as it seems some people fear.
 
 Brent
  
 
  Every single trial is unintelligible. AG
   
 
   I find that remark unintelligble.  I don't think "intelligble" means what 
you think it means.
 
 Brent
  
 
  It means there exists no definable physical process to account for the 
outcome of a single trial. AG
   
 
   That's what is usually called "non-deterministic".  "Unintelligble" means 
not understandable or incomprehensible.  
 
 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
 
   
 To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Much thanks Telmo for your informative reply. At this level of society, for I 
suspect neither of us are "elites," it's important to trade information, 
scientific for sure, but also societal, too, as this Black Swan event that 
Putin started years ago, and made 10 X worse this February. 
Much thanks,
Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in 
Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

#yiv6638211720 p.yiv6638211720MsoNormal, #yiv6638211720 
p.yiv6638211720MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}#yiv6638211720 p.yiv6638211720MsoNormal, 
#yiv6638211720 p.yiv6638211720MsoNoSpacing{margin:0;}Am So, 17. Apr 2022, um 
16:17, schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:


I am asking Telmo to sort of give back with a short sense of what you feel and 
think about Sweden deciding to join NATO. This would include Finland as well, 
despite Putin's threats. This is an open placation so anyone can answer, but 
it'd be better than a Yank coughing out our ideologies. Anyone from the EU or 
anywhere else is sure welcome to give forth opinions on this. Where does this 
leave you and your family and friends? With regard to Putin, what do you need?  


I'm not sure that my opinion matters, or if it is representative of anything, 
but here it goes:

I'm completely in favor of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. In fact, I always 
saw them as "de facto" members. They are both member states of the EU, so I 
believe that a direct aggression to any of these countries by Russia would mean 
direct military engagement of the west, NATO or no NATO. There's no way France, 
for example, would just stand buy and watch Putin bite a chunk out of the EU. 
And I believe Putin believes the same.

To be honest, until recently I assumed that Sweden and Finland were not NATO 
members for cultural reasons. Perhaps a certain Nordic sense of independence. I 
now realize that this was mostly an appeasement strategy toward Russia. In this 
case I am still in favor of them joining, because I do not believe anymore that 
Putin can be appeased.

To be honest, I am much more worried about Ukraine joining the EU hastily. It 
is a huge country and I suspect it is still quite far away from economic and 
even cultural alignment with the EU. I mean, let's be honest, they have a 
neonazi gang as an official government force (the Azov battalion). I believe 
that granting them membership to early could put the EU project under immense 
stress (of the sort already posed by Hungary, but to a much larger degree) -- 
this possibly combined with the perfect storm of the German economy collapsing 
in the face of the unavoidable step of suspending all gas imports from Russia 
and the possible election of Le Pen in France (which could mean that the EU 
would then have one of its most powerful member states working against its 
interests from the inside).

At the same time, perhaps this is just one of those moments were History will 
not wait and the only option is to rise to the occasion. It is also true that 
the EU seems to grow from each crisis it survives.

More generally, I think that all of us (the west), with all of our flaws, 
represent a way of life that is opposed by the powerful dictatorships of Russia 
and China. If we value and wish to protect this way of life, we must stick 
together and be smart.




Caveat: I will probably respond to your thoughts on all this, though I will try 
to do so respectfully, which will be a first for me. My reason is I feel I need 
a different perspective from people living closer to the fighting.


Of course.

I don't feel like I am "close to the fighting" in any way. There's still Poland 
between me and the war. I am living my perfectly normal life. Perhaps I just 
feel a bit more grateful than usual for this normalcy.

The only way in which I feel close to the events is by the presence of refugees 
in my neighborhood. Many cars with Ukrainian license plates around. A hotel 
around the corner from my house has been turned into a temporary refugee 
center. A lot of people donate food, clothes, etc. Some of them like to play 
table tennis with the locals in the park nearby.


 Otherwise, please continue with quantum modal realism and if Alice & Bob 
teleport between London and Moscow, will they be arrested by the FSB? 


Yes and no. :)

Be well spud (and everyone else!)
T.


Thanks!



-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: spudboy...@aol.com
Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; 
meekerbr...@gmail.com 
Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:28 am
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It.


On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 7:59 PM  wrote:


> Rather than deny my assertions you have reinforced them JC. Stalin cannot 
> hurt you if one is Stalin.


Stalin cannot hurt you if Stalin is dead, and there can be no doubt that Stalin 
has reached thermal equilibrium with his environment. This dictator is no 

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It.

[John Clark]

Spud, do you even read the links you post with such abandon? Your first
link refers to an article in the New York Times, a newspaper that you
claimed the day before was absolutely terrible. And the next two links just
referred back to the New York Times article and parroted what it said.  And
Spud, in the past month Biden has given Ukraine thousands of Javelin
missiles and did so with no strings attached; but when Volodymyr Zelenskyy
begged Trump to give him a few Javelins Trump said he would but he needed
Zelenskyy to "do him a favor" first, he needed him to* publicly *announce
that he was starting an investigation of one of Trump's political
opponents, he didn't actually have to do any investigating, he just had to
announce he was going to do so and say it* publicly*. You said you don't
like corrupt politicians so why the hell do you like Trump, is "comic
timing" really that important to you?!

*> May the Easter Donald not haunt your dreams*


Unfortunately until the man assumes room temperature there is no chance of
that.

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

rtt





On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:21 AM  wrote:

> I do remember that when Capn' Bonespurs back in 2018, John, did conflict
> with Putin's troops, when they were hired in as mercs for Assad in Syria,
> (Wagner), and the US was ordered to fight back in force. We won that
> battle! Please review at your leisure.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html
>
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reportedly-bragged-about-a-classified-battle-in-syria-2018-5
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/russian-mercenaries-killed-us-airstrikes-syria
>
> The obvious conclusion JC is that no, Capn' Bonespurs did NOT back away
> from Putin's Bullying, but that Biden, Obama, and Yes, Bush43 did. JC if
> you won't give the devil his due, one ignores that capabilities of one's
> enemies. Yes, avoiding a burgeoning nuclear holocaust is understandable,
> back then, and today. This was behind my ugly idea of having the Russians
> re-nuke Cuba or Cub-er as Kennedy said. Probably a crazy-bad idea, but it
> was giving Vlad the Impaler an out with the Russian people. Yes, there are
> downsides to this, like what if Putin starts up again and there's
> hypersonics in Cub-er? My thought is we're just as dead anyway and as long
> as we can successfully retaliate, what difference does it make, as Mama
> Clinton once uttered?
>
> May the Easter Donald not haunt your dreams as he does with every
> democrat! Amen.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com
> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:03 am
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It.
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 8:16 PM  wrote:
>
> > *You are notoriously erratic and moody!*
>
>
> No I'm not!  Well OK maybe I am No I'm not!
>
> *> I liked some of the things Trump did, I was so-so on other things. I'm
> a hard guy to please. I did love his comedic timing*
>
>
> TO HELL WITH COMEDIC TIMING!! I'm talking about the cause of the Fermi
> Paradox while you're talking about the silly comedy routine of a man who
> has control of thousands of Thermonuclear bombs and on a whim could kill
> you, and everybody you know, and civilization, in the next 20 minutes.
> Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a professional comedian but when Russia invaded his
> country he knew it was time to get serious, and so he will always be
> remembered as more like Winston Churchill than Jerry Lewis. Can you imagine
> Captain Bonespurs refusing to run away and deciding to risk his life by
> fighting for his country as Zelenskyy has done? I can't.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> cbs
>
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv24VsGCayknnwFvM4AGYa3pNPWMP4iBtB6Wpk48%2BQ3VgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It. "Come in Telmo! America to Telmo!!"

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:17 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>  is this neo-nazism real or is Putin's propaganda?*


I'm sure there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine, there are plenty in the USA too.
And for every American Nazi there are 10 that, if not out and out Nazis,
are what I would diplomatically call "Nazi curious"; just look at QAnon and
its doppelgänger the Republican party.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

qnn






>
> On 4/17/2022 9:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Am So, 17. Apr 2022, um 16:17, schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:
>
>
> I am asking Telmo to sort of give back with a short sense of what you feel
> and think about Sweden deciding to join NATO. This would include Finland as
> well, despite Putin's threats. This is an open placation so anyone can
> answer, but it'd be better than a Yank coughing out our ideologies. Anyone
> from the EU or anywhere else is sure welcome to give forth opinions on
> this. Where does this leave you and your family and friends? With regard to
> Putin, what do you need?
>
>
> I'm not sure that my opinion matters, or if it is representative of
> anything, but here it goes:
>
> I'm completely in favor of Sweden and Finland joining NATO. In fact, I
> always saw them as "de facto" members. They are both member states of the
> EU, so I believe that a direct aggression to any of these countries by
> Russia would mean direct military engagement of the west, NATO or no NATO.
> There's no way France, for example, would just stand buy and watch Putin
> bite a chunk out of the EU. And I believe Putin believes the same.
>
> To be honest, until recently I assumed that Sweden and Finland were not
> NATO members for cultural reasons. Perhaps a certain Nordic sense of
> independence. I now realize that this was mostly an appeasement strategy
> toward Russia. In this case I am still in favor of them joining, because I
> do not believe anymore that Putin can be appeased.
>
>
> I wonder if the Finns would like to take back the territory Russia took
> from them in the 1940 Winter War?
>
>
> To be honest, I am much more worried about Ukraine joining the EU hastily.
> It is a huge country and I suspect it is still quite far away from economic
> and even cultural alignment with the EU. I mean, let's be honest, they have
> a neonazi gang as an official government force (the Azov battalion).
>
>
> How is that consistent with electing a Jew president?  I realize the Jews
> in Ukraine were persecuted under Stalin and many emigrated to Israel when
> the USSR collapsed.  But is this neo-nazism real or is Putin's propaganda?
>
> Brent
>
> I believe that granting them membership to early could put the EU project
> under immense stress (of the sort already posed by Hungary, but to a much
> larger degree) -- this possibly combined with the perfect storm of the
> German economy collapsing in the face of the unavoidable step of suspending
> all gas imports from Russia and the possible election of Le Pen in France
> (which could mean that the EU would then have one of its most powerful
> member states working against its interests from the inside).
>
> At the same time, perhaps this is just one of those moments were History
> will not wait and the only option is to rise to the occasion. It is also
> true that the EU seems to grow from each crisis it survives.
>
> More generally, I think that all of us (the west), with all of our flaws,
> represent a way of life that is opposed by the powerful dictatorships of
> Russia and China. If we value and wish to protect this way of life, we must
> stick together and be smart.
>
>
>
> Caveat: I will probably respond to your thoughts on all this, though I
> will try to do so respectfully, which will be a first for me. My reason is
> I feel I need a different perspective from people living closer to the
> fighting.
>
>
> Of course.
>
> I don't feel like I am "close to the fighting" in any way. There's still
> Poland between me and the war. I am living my perfectly normal life.
> Perhaps I just feel a bit more grateful than usual for this normalcy.
>
> The only way in which I feel close to the events is by the presence of
> refugees in my neighborhood. Many cars with Ukrainian license plates
> around. A hotel around the corner from my house has been turned into a
> temporary refugee center. A lot of people donate food, clothes, etc. Some
> of them like to play table tennis with the locals in the park nearby.
>
> Otherwise, please continue with quantum modal realism and if Alice & Bob
> teleport between London and Moscow, will they be arrested by the FSB?
>
>
> Yes and no. :)
>
> Be well spud (and everyone else!)
> T.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark  
> To: spudboy...@aol.com
> Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> ; meekerbr...@gmail.com
>  
> Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:28 am
> Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Don’t Just Freeze Russia’s Money. Seize It.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr