Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 22:24, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:22 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
>> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing that 
>> all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal 
>> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>> 
>> You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly dislike 
>> about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest about the 
>> number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly". 
>> Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes 
>> closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient 
>> fiction. If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our 
>> experience, then why have them there?
> 
> How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some non 
> unitary collapse of some sort?
> 
> I did not say that they disappeared: merely that they do not play any role in 
> explaining our experience.

Then you agree with the, or some, form of the Many-Histories/World theory.



> If you can point to any such role, then fine. But I doubt that you can do 
> this.

That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can not 
access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we can 
personally observe.



>  
> There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact 
> locally in between us.
> 
> Again you appear to ignore the primary role of science is in explaining our 
> experience. In our experience, there most certainly is a preferred basis -- 
> the world around us has not dissolved into the "mush" that Schroedinger 
> feared so much. If there is only a "personal basis", explain to me why your 
> personal basis does not include superpositions of live and dead cats.


For exactly the same reason that when I am duplicated in Washington and Moscow, 
I don’t feel personally to be in both cities at once.

The linearity of the evolution of the wave + the linearity of the tensor 
product entails that if a robot observe a cat in the state a + d, and this with 
a ad-measuring device, he ends up into a robot observing the evolution of a cat 
which is alive, and a robot observing the evolution of a cat which is dead. 

Once we have a body, evolution has chosen the “preferred base”, but it does not 
play a fundamental role in the fundamental equation. We need some base to have 
a perspective, like in Mechanist philosophy of mind we need some universal 
machinery to be able to talk on all of them.

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/CAFxXSLQeVLEhnDECFz_%2BZi3b7wo5QtQR7UenRsR%3D3LrmeJQ1RA%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/67EC6FE2-777B-4489-8A22-E15265918126%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:58 PM Philip Thrift 
wrote:

> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:45:45 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is
>> determined by quantum Darwinism acting on the normal physical interactions
>> between quantum objects. Being human or sentient is totally irrelevant..
>> The preferred basis plays a fundamental role in the explanation of the
>> world as we perceive it -- we do not directly perceive Hilbert space. And
>> explaining our experience is the aim of science -- other things fall into
>> the realm of metaphysics, which is not science.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
> *Journal of Quantum Information Science*
>
> *No Quantum Process Can Explain the Existence of the Preferred Basis:*
> *Decoherence Is Not Universal*
>
> Hitoshi Inamori
>
> https://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1300204_70108.htm
>
> Environment induced decoherence, and other quantum processes, have been
> proposed in the literature to explain the apparent spontaneous
> selection―out of the many mathematically eligible bases―of a privileged
> measurement basis that corresponds to what we actually observe. This paper
> describes such processes, and demonstrates that―contrary to common
> belief―no such process can actually lead to a preferred basis in general.
>
> The key observation is that environment induced decoherence implicitly
> assumes a prior independence of the observed system, the observer and the
> environment. However, such independence cannot be guaranteed, and we show
> that environment induced decoherence does not succeed in establishing a
> preferred measurement basis in general.
>
> We conclude that the existence of the preferred basis must be postulated
> in quantum mechanics, and that changing the basis for a measurement is, and
> must be, described as an actual physical process.
>

Where do you find these idiots, Phil?

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/CAFxXSLSMP9eKfhAUpVNLRs-Dds8hvss2qRadvUgrUm1o6Z4BTA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2019, at 01:13, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/7/2019 6:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 On 6 Nov 2019, at 10:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 5 Nov 2019, at 02:53, Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> IIUC, as the temperature rises, interference in the double slit C60 
> experiment declines, and eventually disappears. I don't think this is 
> really a which-way experiment because the interference disappears whether 
> or not which-way is observed. How does this effect the collapse issue? 
> Usually, IIUC, when interference ceases to exist, it implies collapse of 
> the wf. So, is the C60 double slit experiment evidence for collapse of 
> the wf? TIA, AG
 
 My two pre views posts explained exactly this, in the non-collapse frame. 
 It works for particles, Molecules and even macroscopic cats. The advantage 
 of the non-collapse quantum theory is that any interaction can be counted 
 as a measurement. So heat cannot not decrease interference, for the 
 technical factorisation reason already explained.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 They've sent 2000-atom sized molecules through double slits.
 
 What about sending cats?
>>> 
>>> You will loss the ability to get the interference, because it is hugely 
>>> more complex to isolate a cat from the environment, so its alive or dead 
>>> state will be pass on you unavoidably very quickly.  See my explanation to 
>>> Grayson why any (unknown) interaction of an object in a superposition state 
>>> makes it logically impossible to remain in a superposition relatively to 
>>> you. It uses only very elementary algebra. The quantum effect, to be 
>>> exploited, require perfect isolation, which is impossible for most 
>>> macroscopic object. But some “macro-superposition” have been obtained with 
>>> superconducting device. In fact, superconductor is a quantum macroscopic 
>>> effect.
>> 
>> Aside from the isolation problems the de Broglie wavelength of a cat is 
>> extremely small so to get an interference pattern the slit and slit spacing 
>> must be correspondingly small.  The C60 experiment was only made 
>> possible by the development of the Tablot-Lau interferometer.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I've made this point before; the decoherence time for a cat is very very 
>> short, but how does this effect the point Schroedinger wanted to make, since 
>> the cat is in that paradoxical superposition for some short but finite 
>> duration? AG 
> 
> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
> 
> Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG

Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, and for 
reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that is get 
entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look at the cat 
in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a guy seeing the 
cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained why they cannot 
interact, although they might interfere themselves.






>  
> I don’t see any mean to avoid this without introducing non unitary phenomena. 
> [T]he accessibility to interference is very short, because we can’t isolate 
> the cat,
> 
> Then without interference, the superposition ceases to exist! AG

Relatively to me or you, but, in principles, they do not cease to exist, they 
just cease to be detectable.

Bruno


>  
> and the wave length is very tiny (making perhaps no sense in a GR 
> accommodation of QM), but in pure elementary QM, superposition are forever.
> 
> 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/a12597eb-c5c4-4138-b0dd-dde3500c0a54%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/5FF3B4B5-5557-4544-B8FE-393A2F8F82AF%40ulb.ac.be.

Propositions as Types: Some Missing Links

[Philip Thrift]

via https://twitter.com/ko_bx/status/1193828537188401153


I’ve recently started studying Topology, which turned out to be a topic 
filled with set theory and theorems around it. Unfortunately, my brain was 
well-poisoned with Type Theory by the time I’ve started, so I couldn’t help 
but itch my hands in an attempt of encoding things in Type Theory.

Kostiantyn Rybnikov
@ko_bx


https://k-bx.github.io/articles/propositions-as-types-missing-links.html


@philipthrift

-- 
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/8fc10c9a-1f6d-4189-8a0a-66a23e9fb7dd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:18 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 22:24, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:22 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the
>>> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing
>>> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal
>>> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>>>
>>
>> You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly
>> dislike about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest
>> about the number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly".
>> Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes
>> closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient
>> fiction. If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our
>> experience, then why have them there?
>>
>>
>> How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some
>> non unitary collapse of some sort?
>>
>
> I did not say that they disappeared: merely that they do not play any role
> in explaining our experience.
>
>
> Then you agree with the, or some, form of the Many-Histories/World theory.
>
> If you can point to any such role, then fine. But I doubt that you can do
> this.
>
>
> That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can
> not access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we
> can personally observe.
>

That is not scientific realism -- that is metaphysical mysticism.

>
>
>> There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact
>> locally in between us.
>>
>
> Again you appear to ignore the primary role of science is in explaining
> our experience. In our experience, there most certainly is a preferred
> basis -- the world around us has not dissolved into the "mush" that
> Schroedinger feared so much. If there is only a "personal basis", explain
> to me why your personal basis does not include superpositions of live and
> dead cats.
>
>
> For exactly the same reason that when I am duplicated in Washington and
> Moscow, I don’t feel personally to be in both cities at once.
>

So you are in the Washington/Moscow basis -- not the( W+/- M) basis. That
is a preferred basis.

> The linearity of the evolution of the wave + the linearity of the tensor
> product entails that if a robot observe a cat in the state a + d, and this
> with a ad-measuring device, he ends up into a robot observing the evolution
> of a cat which is alive, and a robot observing the evolution of a cat which
> is dead.
>

That is exactly the definition of a preferred basis -- which you appear to
want to deny even exists.

> Once we have a body, evolution has chosen the “preferred base”, but it
> does not play a fundamental role in the fundamental equation.
>

Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is
determined by quantum Darwinism acting on the normal physical interactions
between quantum objects. Being human or sentient is totally irrelevant..
The preferred basis plays a fundamental role in the explanation of the
world as we perceive it -- we do not directly perceive Hilbert space. And
explaining our experience is the aim of science -- other things fall into
the realm of metaphysics, which is not science.

Bruce

We need some base to have a perspective, like in Mechanist philosophy of
> mind we need some universal machinery to be able to talk on all of them.
>
> 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/CAFxXSLS3Q0a0QJFNiv6NCh2zSrUxjzkTi5enj5u2o920XfMTbg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 6:03:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:58 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:45:45 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is 
>>> determined by quantum Darwinism acting on the normal physical interactions 
>>> between quantum objects. Being human or sentient is totally irrelevant.. 
>>> The preferred basis plays a fundamental role in the explanation of the 
>>> world as we perceive it -- we do not directly perceive Hilbert space. And 
>>> explaining our experience is the aim of science -- other things fall into 
>>> the realm of metaphysics, which is not science.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>> *Journal of Quantum Information Science*
>>
>> *No Quantum Process Can Explain the Existence of the Preferred Basis:*
>> *Decoherence Is Not Universal*
>>
>> Hitoshi Inamori
>>
>> https://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1300204_70108.htm
>>
>> Environment induced decoherence, and other quantum processes, have been 
>> proposed in the literature to explain the apparent spontaneous 
>> selection―out of the many mathematically eligible bases―of a privileged 
>> measurement basis that corresponds to what we actually observe. This paper 
>> describes such processes, and demonstrates that―contrary to common 
>> belief―no such process can actually lead to a preferred basis in general. 
>>
>> The key observation is that environment induced decoherence implicitly 
>> assumes a prior independence of the observed system, the observer and the 
>> environment. However, such independence cannot be guaranteed, and we show 
>> that environment induced decoherence does not succeed in establishing a 
>> preferred measurement basis in general. 
>>
>> We conclude that the existence of the preferred basis must be postulated 
>> in quantum mechanics, and that changing the basis for a measurement is, and 
>> must be, described as an actual physical process.
>>
>
> Where do you find these idiots, Phil?
>
> Bruce
>




Journal of Quantum Information Science


https://www.scirp.org/journal/JQIS/ 



@philipthrift 

-- 
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/b4963ae0-c5fe-4540-84af-29f173f92c7c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Infinitesimals

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:09, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:17:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 9 Nov 2019, at 02:22, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> We can think of infinitesimals as a manifestation of Gödel's theorem with 
>> Peano number theory. There is nothing odd that is going to happen with this 
>> number theory, but no matter how much we count we never reach "infinity." We 
>> have then an issue of ω-consistency, and to completeness. To make this 
>> complete we must then say there exists an element that has no successor. We 
>> can now take this "supernatural number" and take the reciprocal of it within 
>> the field of rationals or reals. This is in a way what infinitesimals are. 
>> These are a way that Robinson numbers are constructed. These are as "real" 
>> in a sense, just as imaginary numbers are. They are only pure fictions if 
>> one stays strictly within the Peano number theory. They also have incredible 
>> utility in that the whole topological set theory foundation for algebraic 
>> geometry and topology is based on this.
> 
> Roughly thinking, I agree. It corroborates my feeling that first order logic 
> is science, and second-order logic is philosophy. Useful philosophy, note, 
> but useful fiction also.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> The key word is useful. Infinitesimals are immensely useful in calculus and 
> point-set topology.

Which infinitesimals? The informal one by Newton or Leibniz? Their recovering 
in non-standard analysis?
Of in synthetic (category based) geometry?

Personally, despite I am logician, I don’t really believe in non standard 
analysis. I find the Cauchy sequences more useful, and directly understandable 
(the “new” infinitesimal requires an appendix in either mathematical logic or 
in category theory).




> It provide a proof of the mean value theorem in calculus, which in higher 
> dimension is Stokes' rule that in the language of forms lends itself to 
> algebraic topology.

Abstract topology is enough here, in the Kolmogorov topological abstract 
spaces. You don’t need formal infinitesimal to have a mean value theorem in 
calculus. I guess you are OK with this.



> Something that useful as I see it has some sort of ontology to it, even if it 
> is in the abstract sense of mathematics.

Like physics, when we assume mechanism, it exists in the phenomenological 
sense, which is the case of all interesting thing. But to solve the mind-body 
problem, we need to be clear on the ontology, and with mechanism, the natural 
numbers (accompanied by their usual + and * laws) or anything Turing equivalent 
is enough, and cannot be extended, without making the phenomenology exploding 
(full of “white rabbits”).

Bruno









> 
> LC
>  
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 6:39:53 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, 
>> And Their Foes From Berkeley To Russell And Beyond
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0174 
>> 
>> Infinitesimals, Imaginaries, Ideals, and Fictions
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2137 
>> 
>> Leibniz vs Ishiguro: Closing a quarter-century of syncategoremania
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07209 
>> 
>> Leibniz frequently writes that his infinitesimals are useful fictions, and 
>> we agree; but we shall show that it is best not to understand them as 
>> logical fictions; instead, they are better understood as pure fictions.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bf376129-a933-4d79-9134-8568795df2a4%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/aebf7dfe-6627-4c23-b0b5-9c2644e05fc1%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 

Re: C60 Interference

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>


> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>>
>
> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>
>
> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, and
> for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that is
> get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look at
> the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a guy
> seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained why
> they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>

That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.

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/CAFxXSLRDr5%2Bt%2Bq-YjrjMPc3bEkAdUb6ezYfXahbUuEnTcEsahA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:18:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 22:24, Bruce Kellett > 
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:22 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>>> ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
>>> probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing 
>>> that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal 
>>> subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction.
>>>
>>
>> You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly 
>> dislike about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest 
>> about the number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly". 
>> Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes 
>> closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient 
>> fiction. If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our 
>> experience, then why have them there?
>>
>>
>> How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some 
>> non unitary collapse of some sort? 
>>
>
> I did not say that they disappeared: merely that they do not play any role 
> in explaining our experience.
>
>
> Then you agree with the, or some, form of the Many-Histories/World theory.
>
>
>
> If you can point to any such role, then fine. But I doubt that you can do 
> this.
>
>
> That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can 
> not access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we 
> can personally observe.
>
>
>
>  
>
>> There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact 
>> locally in between us.
>>
>
> Again you appear to ignore the primary role of science is in explaining 
> our experience. In our experience, there most certainly is a preferred 
> basis -- the world around us has not dissolved into the "mush" that 
> Schroedinger feared so much. If there is only a "personal basis", explain 
> to me why your personal basis does not include superpositions of live and 
> dead cats.
>
>
>
> For exactly the same reason that when I am duplicated in Washington and 
> Moscow, I don’t feel personally to be in both cities at once.
>
> The linearity of the evolution of the wave + the linearity of the tensor 
> product entails that if a robot observe a cat in the state a + d, and this 
> with a ad-measuring device, he ends up into a robot observing the evolution 
> of a cat which is alive, and a robot observing the evolution of a cat which 
> is dead. 
>
> Once we have a body, evolution has chosen the “preferred base”, but it 
> does not play a fundamental role in the fundamental equation. We need some 
> base to have a perspective, like in Mechanist philosophy of mind we need 
> some universal machinery to be able to talk on all of them.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
If reality is pure "information" (as a lot of physicists today seem to 
believe, and that belief is required for Many Worlds), than copying 
(branching) is free.

But if all is matter, then there cannot be Many Worlds - or Many "You"s.

@philipthrift

-- 
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/e8e2b325-14e7-48c3-a60a-8d2bd5e53cec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:45:45 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:18 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 22:24, Bruce Kellett > 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:22 PM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett > 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>>
 ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the 
 probabilities becomes actualized.  MWI tries to avoid this by supposing 
 that all probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming 
 orthogonal 
 subspaces.  There are some problems with this too, but I see the 
 attraction.

>>>
>>> You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly 
>>> dislike about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest 
>>> about the number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly". 
>>> Particularly over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes 
>>> closer, and he effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient 
>>> fiction. If these other branches play no effective role in explaining our 
>>> experience, then why have them there?
>>>
>>>
>>> How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some 
>>> non unitary collapse of some sort? 
>>>
>>
>> I did not say that they disappeared: merely that they do not play any 
>> role in explaining our experience.
>>
>>
>> Then you agree with the, or some, form of the Many-Histories/World theory.
>>
>> If you can point to any such role, then fine. But I doubt that you can do 
>> this.
>>
>>
>> That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can 
>> not access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we 
>> can personally observe.
>>
>
> That is not scientific realism -- that is metaphysical mysticism.
>
>>  
>>
>>> There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact 
>>> locally in between us.
>>>
>>
>> Again you appear to ignore the primary role of science is in explaining 
>> our experience. In our experience, there most certainly is a preferred 
>> basis -- the world around us has not dissolved into the "mush" that 
>> Schroedinger feared so much. If there is only a "personal basis", explain 
>> to me why your personal basis does not include superpositions of live and 
>> dead cats.
>>
>>
>> For exactly the same reason that when I am duplicated in Washington and 
>> Moscow, I don’t feel personally to be in both cities at once.
>>
>
> So you are in the Washington/Moscow basis -- not the( W+/- M) basis. That 
> is a preferred basis.
>
>> The linearity of the evolution of the wave + the linearity of the tensor 
>> product entails that if a robot observe a cat in the state a + d, and this 
>> with a ad-measuring device, he ends up into a robot observing the evolution 
>> of a cat which is alive, and a robot observing the evolution of a cat which 
>> is dead.
>>
>
> That is exactly the definition of a preferred basis -- which you appear to 
> want to deny even exists.
>
>> Once we have a body, evolution has chosen the “preferred base”, but it 
>> does not play a fundamental role in the fundamental equation.
>>
>
> Evolution has precisely nothing to do with it. The preferred basis is 
> determined by quantum Darwinism acting on the normal physical interactions 
> between quantum objects. Being human or sentient is totally irrelevant.. 
> The preferred basis plays a fundamental role in the explanation of the 
> world as we perceive it -- we do not directly perceive Hilbert space. And 
> explaining our experience is the aim of science -- other things fall into 
> the realm of metaphysics, which is not science.
>
> Bruce
>
> We need some base to have a perspective, like in Mechanist philosophy of 
>> mind we need some universal machinery to be able to talk on all of them.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>


*Journal of Quantum Information Science*

*No Quantum Process Can Explain the Existence of the Preferred Basis:*
*Decoherence Is Not Universal*

Hitoshi Inamori


https://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1300204_70108.htm


Environment induced decoherence, and other quantum processes, have been 
proposed in the literature to explain the apparent spontaneous 
selection―out of the many mathematically eligible bases―of a privileged 
measurement basis that corresponds to what we actually observe. This paper 
describes such processes, and demonstrates that―contrary to common 
belief―no such process can actually lead to a preferred basis in general. 

The key observation is that environment induced decoherence implicitly 
assumes a prior independence of the observed system, the observer and the 
environment. However, such independence cannot be guaranteed, and we show 
that environment induced decoherence does not succeed in establishing a 
preferred measurement basis in general. 

We conclude that the 

Re: Infinitesimals

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> Personally, despite I am logician, I don’t really believe in non standard 
> analysis. I find the Cauchy sequences more useful, and directly 
> understandable (the “new” infinitesimal requires an appendix in either 
> mathematical logic or in category theory).
>
>
>
>
But, what about Zeno? :)

Actualized limits? Can't happen in physical reality.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/0f7f9a52-965b-4faa-a7f4-4636c167f93a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:18 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *when I am duplicated in Washington and Moscow, I don’t feel personally
> to be in both cities at once.*


Then what one and only one city do "you" personally feel to be in? If you
can not clearly answer that question, and the history of this list provides
overwhelming evidence that you cannot, then the statement "I don’t
personally feel to be in both cities at once" has no meaning. The personal
pronoun "I" that you're in the habit of using without thinking has no
meaning due to the fact that a "I" duplication machine is a key part of the
thought exparament. So what we end up with is a thought exparament that
lacks any thought.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1cpt3WiV4tobXY2ySFkY6hU1atJB43ex506mUM%2BVrRiA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>>
>  
>
>> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>>>
>>
>> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>>
>>
>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
>> is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look 
>> at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
>> guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
>> why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>>
>
> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>
> Bruce
>

In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
states simultaneously? 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/7b98cb52-4988-459b-86bb-ca884360e244%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>  
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.

>>>
>>> *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
>>> and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
>>> is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you look 
>>> at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
>>> guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
>>> why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, what's 
> the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in both 
> states simultaneously? AG 
>

None, since it isn't.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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/c423f1e4-f44f-48e1-84a5-447d8aacd059%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[smitra]

On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:


On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal 
wrote:


On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson 
wrote:


On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.

THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG


Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome,
and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder,
that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So,
if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost
immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat
dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they might
interfere themselves.

That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.

Bruce

In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>,
what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's
in both states simultaneously? AG


This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay 
happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay will 
happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then not 
a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which one. 
The difference between the two scenarios has in principle experimentally 
verifiable consequences.  For example, the Delta++ particle decays to a 
proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong 
interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by applying 
a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to the 
superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> denotes a 
neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive pions. 
Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 and 
2/3.


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/68cd6bc3b65c07bc3fc9702cd488616c%40zonnet.nl.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:40:04 PM UTC-7, smitra wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2019 22:44, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  
> >>> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever. 
> >> 
> >> THEN HOW COME WE NEVER OBSERVE THAT STATE? AG 
> > 
> > Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
> > and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, 
> > that is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, 
> > if you look at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost 
> > immediately into a guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat 
> > dead, and QM explained why they cannot interact, although they might 
> > interfere themselves. 
> > 
> > That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny. 
> > 
> > Bruce 
> > 
> > In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
> > what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
> > in both states simultaneously? AG 
>
> This is what happens, as confirmed by experiment. In case the decay 
> happens fast and there is more than one decay channel, the decay will 
> happen to a superposition of the different possibilities. It's then not 
> a decay to one of the possibilities and we just don't know which one. 
> The difference between the two scenarios has in principle experimentally 
> verifiable consequences.  For example, the Delta++ particle decays to a 
> proton and a positive pion due to the strong interaction. The strong 
> interaction obeys isospin symmetry. From this one can deduce by applying 
> a rotation in isospin space that the delta+ particle should decay to the 
> superposition sqrt(1/3)|n>|pi+> + sqrt(2/3)|p>|pi0> where |n> denotes a 
> neutron|p> a proton and |pi0> and |pi+> are neutral and positive pions. 
> Experiments have confirmed the relative decay probabilities of 1/3 and 
> 2/3. 
>
> Saibal 
>

I don't see how this relates to my question. If the relative decay 
probabilites
are what you state, does this mean that the system PRIOR to decay is 
several different states simultaneously? 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/2b43cea0-94e4-4991-b29b-2c3a81675976%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Panpsychism, materialism, and zombies

[Eva]

I think @Bruno is right - consciousness is not matter. It looks that 
consciousness is kinda abstract - certain kind of patterns of neuronal 
activation is what's necessary for consciousness. Without that, brain is not 
conscious. Maybe matter (particles) itself are indywiduated only by relations. 
This view is called ontic structural realism.
So if I have to, I would bet rather on pan(prosto)psychism, not panpsychism :) 

-- 
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/77b2c6d6-bd57-4cec-9e42-eb14898011d5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 4:35:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
 On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:01, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>>>  
>>>
 On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 5:42:50 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Once the cat is alive + dead, he remains in that state for ever.
>

 *Then how come we NEVER observe that state? AG*


 Because the observable are defined by their possible definite outcome, 
 and for reason already explained, macroscopic superposition decoder, that 
 is get entangled with the environment at a very high speed. So, if you 
 look 
 at the cat in the a+d state, you are duplicate almost immediately into a 
 guy seeing the cat alive + the guy seeing the cat dead, and QM explained 
 why they cannot interact, although they might interfere themselves.

>>>
>>> That is exactly a preferred basis -- which you seem to want to deny.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's in 
>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>
>
> None, since it isn't.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? 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/2217206a-6d6d-49d0-817c-16ba6e241422%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Infinitesimals

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:09, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:17:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9 Nov 2019, at 02:22, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> We can think of infinitesimals as a manifestation of Gödel's theorem with 
>> Peano number theory. There is nothing odd that is going to happen with this 
>> number theory, but no matter how much we count we never reach "infinity." 
>> We have then an issue of ω-consistency, and to completeness. To make this 
>> complete we must then say there exists an element that has no successor. We 
>> can now take this "supernatural number" and take the reciprocal of it 
>> within the field of rationals or reals. This is in a way what 
>> infinitesimals are. These are a way that Robinson numbers are constructed. 
>> These are as "real" in a sense, just as imaginary numbers are. They are 
>> only pure fictions if one stays strictly within the Peano number theory. 
>> They also have incredible utility in that the whole topological set theory 
>> foundation for algebraic geometry and topology is based on this.
>>
>>
>> Roughly thinking, I agree. It corroborates my feeling that first order 
>> logic is science, and second-order logic is philosophy. Useful philosophy, 
>> note, but useful fiction also.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> The key word is useful. Infinitesimals are immensely useful in calculus 
> and point-set topology. 
>
>
> Which infinitesimals? The informal one by Newton or Leibniz? Their 
> recovering in non-standard analysis?
> Of in synthetic (category based) geometry?
>
>
If one is sticking to a more formal approach then Leibniz  Really 
Weierstrass is the guy who got this straight. 
 

> Personally, despite I am logician, I don’t really believe in non standard 
> analysis. I find the Cauchy sequences more useful, and directly 
> understandable (the “new” infinitesimal requires an appendix in either 
> mathematical logic or in category theory).
>
>
These things are not about belief or nonbelief. They are formal models, and 
as I see it one works with any particular model if it is useful. 
 

>
>
> It provide a proof of the mean value theorem in calculus, which in higher 
> dimension is Stokes' rule that in the language of forms lends itself to 
> algebraic topology. 
>
>
> Abstract topology is enough here, in the Kolmogorov topological abstract 
> spaces. You don’t need formal infinitesimal to have a mean value theorem in 
> calculus. I guess you are OK with this.
>
>
>
The MVT relies upon calculus f'(c) = (f(a) - f(b))/(a - b) or the integral 
form ∫f(x)dx = f(c)(a - b) for b to a limits in integral. So infinitesimals 
are there at least implicitly. 

When it comes to point set topology I prefer to get past that as quickly as 
possible and get to cohomology, homotopy or cobordism.
 

>
> Something that useful as I see it has some sort of ontology to it, even if 
> it is in the abstract sense of mathematics.
>
>
> Like physics, when we assume mechanism, it exists in the phenomenological 
> sense, which is the case of all interesting thing. But to solve the 
> mind-body problem, we need to be clear on the ontology, and with mechanism, 
> the natural numbers (accompanied by their usual + and * laws) or anything 
> Turing equivalent is enough, and cannot be extended, without making the 
> phenomenology exploding (full of “white rabbits”).
>
> Bruno
>
>
I don't have thoughts on the mind-body problem. I have no particular theory 
about consciousness or anything related.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ce67a53-c135-46e3-9dc1-9937acf530e4%40googlegroups.com.

Hydrogen to Helium fusion in the VERY early universe.

[Alan Grayson]

I'm watching a science channel about the BB. It's claimed that in the VERY 
early universe, a few seconds after the BB, it was so HOT that Hydrogen was 
fusing into Helium. BUT ... I thought Hydrogen didn't form until around 
380,000 years AFTER the BB, when the CMBR formed. What's going on? TIA, 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/9db3e2e2-f0c5-4bb3-a51b-c67382ab33d8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hydrogen to Helium fusion in the VERY early universe.

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

It's talking about protons (hydogen */nuclei/*) and neutrons fusing into 
alpha particles (helium */nuclei/*). The CMBR was emitted much later 
when it was cool enough for nuclei to capture electrons and become 
hydrogen and helium /*atoms*/.


Brent

On 11/11/2019 6:36 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
I'm watching a science channel about the BB. It's claimed that in the 
VERY early universe, a few seconds after the BB, it was so HOT that 
Hydrogen was fusing into Helium. BUT ... I thought Hydrogen didn't 
form until around 380,000 years AFTER the BB, when the CMBR formed. 
What's going on? TIA, 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/9db3e2e2-f0c5-4bb3-a51b-c67382ab33d8%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/3213d029-c25d-e39d-52c1-fbb993035160%40verizon.net.