Re: Planck Length

2019-02-02 Thread Philip Thrift


On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/2/2019 11:04 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > 
> > "Experiential atoms" are sort of " just words" - like "atoms" was just 
> > a word to the Atomists of ancient Greece. And then a lot of people 
> > ignored them. Hopefully things will go better in this round of history. 
> > 
> > - pt 
>
> Democritus didn't just define atoms as "the uncuttable".  He built a 
> theory on it.  Atoms had hook-and-loop interactions that explained the 
> coherence and interaction of bodies.  They flowed downward explaining 
> gravity.  They swerved explaining interactions.  I don't see any 
> explantory or predictive power in experiential atoms.  It's easy to see 
> how anesthetics may work by blocking ion channels in neurons.  No 
> experiential atoms need be considered. 
>
> Brent 
>



It is Epicurus that wrote of psychical (in addition to physical) atoms:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi

- pt
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-02-02 Thread agrayson2000


On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have 
>> absolutely no effect on the resultant interference pattern which 
>> is 
>> observed. But isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to 
>> effect? AG
>>
>>
>> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles 
>> for the different paths that reach the same point on the 
>> screen*.  
>> The relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so 
>> the overall 
>> phase angle is irrelevant.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> *Sure, except there areTWO forms of phase interference in Wave 
> Mechanics; the one you refer to above, and another discussed in 
> the 
> Stackexchange links I previously posted. In the latter case, the 
> wf is 
> expressed as a superposition, say of two states, where we 
> consider two 
> cases; a multiplicative complex phase shift is included prior to 
> the sum, 
> and different complex phase shifts multiplying each component, 
> all of the 
> form e^i (theta). Easy to show that interference exists in the 
> latter case, 
> but not the former. Now suppose we take the inner product of the 
> wf with 
> the ith eigenstate of the superposition, in order to calculate 
> the 
> probability of measuring the eigenvalue of the ith eigenstate, 
> applying one 
> of the postulates of QM, keeping in mind that each eigenstate is 
> multiplied 
> by a DIFFERENT complex phase shift.  If we further assume the 
> eigenstates 
> are mutually orthogonal, the probability of measuring each 
> eigenvalue does 
> NOT depend on the different phase shifts. What happened to the 
> interference 
> demonstrated by the Stackexchange links? TIA, AG *
>
> Your measurement projected it out. It's like measuring which 
> slit the photon goes through...it eliminates the interference.
>
> Brent
>

 *That's what I suspected; that going to an orthogonal basis, I 
 departed from the examples in Stackexchange where an arbitrary 
 superposition is used in the 

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-02-02 Thread agrayson2000


On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have 
> absolutely no effect on the resultant interference pattern which 
> is 
> observed. But isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to 
> effect? AG
>
>
> The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles 
> for the different paths that reach the same point on the screen*. 
>  
> The relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the 
> overall 
> phase angle is irrelevant.
>
> Brent
>


 *Sure, except there areTWO forms of phase interference in Wave 
 Mechanics; the one you refer to above, and another discussed in 
 the 
 Stackexchange links I previously posted. In the latter case, the 
 wf is 
 expressed as a superposition, say of two states, where we consider 
 two 
 cases; a multiplicative complex phase shift is included prior to 
 the sum, 
 and different complex phase shifts multiplying each component, all 
 of the 
 form e^i (theta). Easy to show that interference exists in the 
 latter case, 
 but not the former. Now suppose we take the inner product of the 
 wf with 
 the ith eigenstate of the superposition, in order to calculate the 
 probability of measuring the eigenvalue of the ith eigenstate, 
 applying one 
 of the postulates of QM, keeping in mind that each eigenstate is 
 multiplied 
 by a DIFFERENT complex phase shift.  If we further assume the 
 eigenstates 
 are mutually orthogonal, the probability of measuring each 
 eigenvalue does 
 NOT depend on the different phase shifts. What happened to the 
 interference 
 demonstrated by the Stackexchange links? TIA, AG *

 Your measurement projected it out. It's like measuring which 
 slit the photon goes through...it eliminates the interference.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *That's what I suspected; that going to an orthogonal basis, I 
>>> departed from the examples in Stackexchange where an arbitrary 
>>> superposition is used in the analysis of interference. 
>>> Nevertheless, isn't 
>>> it possible to transform from an arbitrary superposition to one 
>>> using an 
>>> orthogonal basis? And aren't all bases equivalent from a linear 
>>> algebra 

Re: Planck Length

2019-02-02 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/2/2019 11:04 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


"Experiential atoms" are sort of " just words" - like "atoms" was just 
a word to the Atomists of ancient Greece. And then a lot of people 
ignored them. Hopefully things will go better in this round of history.


- pt


Democritus didn't just define atoms as "the uncuttable".  He built a 
theory on it.  Atoms had hook-and-loop interactions that explained the 
coherence and interaction of bodies.  They flowed downward explaining 
gravity.  They swerved explaining interactions.  I don't see any 
explantory or predictive power in experiential atoms.  It's easy to see 
how anesthetics may work by blocking ion channels in neurons.  No 
experiential atoms need be considered.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-02-02 Thread Philip Thrift


On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:48:00 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/1/2019 10:58 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> In any case, one of the "micropsychists"  has a new paper just out:
>>
>>
>> "According to the *fusion* view ... when micro- or protoconscious 
>> entities come together in the right way, they fuse or 'blend' together to 
>> form a single unified consciousness. ..."
>>
>> *Is Consciousness Intrinsic? A Problem for the Integrated Information 
>> Theory*
>> Hedda Hassel Mørch
>> Journal of Consciousness Studies 26 (1-2):133-162(30) (2019)
>>
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCICI
>> https://philpapers.org/archive/MRCICI.pdf
>>
>> *Abstract*
>> The Integrated Information Theory of consciousness (IIT) claims that 
>> consciousness is identical to maximal integrated information, or maximal Φ. 
>> One objection to IIT is based on what may be called the intrinsicality 
>> problem: consciousness is an intrinsic property, but maximal Φ is an 
>> extrinsic property; therefore, they cannot be identical. 
>>
>>
>> A more cogent objection is that it attributes lots of consciousness to a 
>> Vandermonde matrix:
>>
>> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>
> Scott Aaronson wrote this about 5 years ago. I haven't looked if he has 
> has anything new.
>
> Regarding informationism vs. panpsychism, he only addresses the former.
>
> *I’ve just conjured into my imagination beings whose Φ-values are a 
> thousand, nay a trillion times larger than humans’, yet who are also 
> philosophical zombies: entities that there’s nothing that it’s like to be.*
>   
>
> That of course panpsychists agree with.
>
> He procedes:
>
> *Let S=F_p, where p is some prime sufficiently larger than n, and let V be 
> an n×n Vandermonde matrix over F_p—that is, a matrix whose (i,j) entry 
> equals i^(j-1) (mod p).  Then let f:S^n→S^n be the update function defined 
> by f(x)=Vx. *
>
> Concludes: *the fact that Integrated Information Theory is 
> wrong—demonstrably wrong, for reasons that go to its core—puts it in 
> something like the top 2% of all mathematical theories of consciousness 
> ever proposed.*
>
>
> Now here is where panpsychists diverge from this way of thinking: 
> Everything Scott wrote above involves ultimately computing with numerical 
> entities as the "atoms" (so to speak) of what the "computer" is computing 
> with. What the panpsychists are saying is that it is not numerical entities 
> (numericals: Ns) at all that are at the base of the computing, but 
> experiential entities (experientials: Es). *Es are as basic 
> (ontologically) as Ns*.
>
> *Defining what Es are* is the fundamental problem for panpsychists (vs. 
> numerists, or informationists).
>
>
> Yes, Scott's analysis assumes that consciousness is characterized by some 
> kind of computation...as does Tononi. 
>




So do I. It's called *experience processing* (vs. information processing). 

https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/10/14/experience-processing/


 

> But he observes that whatever your theory of consciousness is it needs to 
> at least roughly agree as to who and what is conscious.  A theory that says 
> a large Vandermonde matrix is conscious fails that test.
>
> But to introduce experiential atoms is just words.  It doesn't explain 
> anything.  Where do your experiential atoms go when you are unconscious?  
> when you die?  How do they interact with non-experiential atoms?  Are 
> experiential atoms necessary for intelligence?
>
> Brent
>


All good questions.

"Experiential atoms" are sort of " just words" - like "atoms" was just a 
word to the Atomists of ancient Greece. And then a lot of people ignored 
them. Hopefully things will go better in this round of history.

- pt


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Planck Length

2019-02-02 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/1/2019 10:58 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 1:54:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 2/1/2019 5:52 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

In any case, one of the "micropsychists"  has a new paper just out:


"According to the *fusion* view ... when micro- or protoconscious
entities come together in the right way, they fuse or 'blend'
together to form a single unified consciousness. ..."

*Is Consciousness Intrinsic? A Problem for the Integrated
Information Theory*
Hedda Hassel Mørch
Journal of Consciousness Studies 26 (1-2):133-162(30) (2019)

https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCICI 
https://philpapers.org/archive/MRCICI.pdf


/Abstract/
The Integrated Information Theory of consciousness (IIT) claims
that consciousness is identical to maximal integrated
information, or maximal Φ. One objection to IIT is based on what
may be called the intrinsicality problem: consciousness is an
intrinsic property, but maximal Φ is an extrinsic property;
therefore, they cannot be identical.


A more cogent objection is that it attributes lots of
consciousness to a Vandermonde matrix:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799


Brent




Scott Aaronson wrote this about 5 years ago. I haven't looked if he 
has has anything new.


Regarding informationism vs. panpsychism, he only addresses the former.

/I’ve just conjured into my imagination beings whose Φ-values are a 
thousand, nay a trillion times larger than humans’, yet who are also 
philosophical zombies: entities that there’s nothing that it’s like to 
be./


That of course panpsychists agree with.

He procedes:

/Let S=F_p, where p is some prime sufficiently larger than n, and let 
V be an n×n Vandermonde matrix over F_p—that is, a matrix whose (i,j) 
entry equals i^(j-1) (mod p).  Then let f:S^n→S^n be the update 
function defined by f(x)=Vx. /


Concludes: /the fact that Integrated Information Theory is 
wrong—demonstrably wrong, for reasons that go to its core—puts it in 
something like the top 2% of all mathematical theories of 
consciousness ever proposed./



Now here is where panpsychists diverge from this way of thinking: 
Everything Scott wrote above involves ultimately computing with 
numerical entities as the "atoms" (so to speak) of what the "computer" 
is computing with. What the panpsychists are saying is that it is not 
numerical entities (numericals: Ns) at all that are at the base of the 
computing, but experiential entities (experientials: Es). /Es are as 
basic (ontologically) as Ns/.


*Defining what Es are* is the fundamental problem for panpsychists 
(vs. numerists, or informationists).


Yes, Scott's analysis assumes that consciousness is characterized by 
some kind of computation...as does Tononi.  But he observes that 
whatever your theory of consciousness is it needs to at least roughly 
agree as to who and what is conscious.  A theory that says a large 
Vandermonde matrix is conscious fails that test.


But to introduce experiential atoms is just words.  It doesn't explain 
anything.  Where do your experiential atoms go when you are 
unconscious?  when you die?  How do they interact with non-experiential 
atoms?  Are experiential atoms necessary for intelligence?


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-02-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have absolutely 
>>> no effect on the resultant interference pattern which is observed. 
>>> But isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to effect? AG
>> 
>> The screen pattern is determined by relative phase angles for the 
>> different paths that reach the same point on the screen.  The 
>> relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so the 
>> overall phase angle is irrelevant.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> Sure, except there areTWO forms of phase interference in Wave 
>> Mechanics; the one you refer to above, and another discussed in the 
>> Stackexchange links I previously posted. In the latter case, the wf 
>> is expressed as a superposition, say of two states, where we 
>> consider two cases; a multiplicative complex phase shift is included 
>> prior to the sum, and different complex phase shifts multiplying 
>> each component, all of the form e^i (theta). Easy to show that 
>> interference exists in the latter case, but not the former. Now 
>> suppose we take the inner product of the wf with the ith eigenstate 
>> of the superposition, in order to calculate the probability of 
>> measuring the eigenvalue of the ith eigenstate, applying one of the 
>> postulates of QM, keeping in mind that each eigenstate is multiplied 
>> by a DIFFERENT complex phase shift.  If we further assume the 
>> eigenstates are mutually orthogonal, the probability of measuring 
>> each eigenvalue does NOT depend on the different phase shifts. What 
>> happened to the interference demonstrated by the Stackexchange 
>> links? TIA, AG 
>> 
> Your measurement projected it out. It's like measuring which slit the 
> photon goes through...it eliminates the interference.
> 
> Brent
> 
> That's what I suspected; that going to an orthogonal basis, I 
> departed from the examples in Stackexchange where an arbitrary 
> superposition is used in the analysis of interference. Nevertheless, 
> isn't it possible to transform from an arbitrary superposition to one 
> using an orthogonal basis? And aren't all bases equivalent from a 
> linear algebra pov? If all bases are equivalent, why would 
> transforming to an orthogonal basis lose interference, whereas a 
> general superposition does not? TIA, AG
 
 I don’t understand this. All the bases we have used all the time are 
 supposed to be orthonormal bases. We suppose that the scalar product 
 (e_i e_j) = delta_i_j, when presenting the Born rule, and the quantum 
 formalism.
 
 Bruno
 
 Generally, bases in a vector space are NOT orthonormal. 
>>> 
>>> Right. But we can