Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 04:27, John Clark wrote: >> > Instead of saying "I hope I win the lottery" they may say, if they are >> > pedantic, "I hope I end up the version of me that wins the lottery". > > > If the lottery is tomorrow and they are pedantic they would say "I hope the > day after tomorrow

Re: FPI

> On 2 Mar 2015, at 5:30 pm, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/1/2015 10:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >>> On 2 Mar 2015, at 2:50 pm, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics >>> forbid anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machi

Re: FPI

On 3/1/2015 10:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 2 Mar 2015, at 2:50 pm, John Clark wrote: But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics forbid anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machine has made, so the personal pronoun "you" never causes ambiguity.

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

> On 2 Mar 2015, at 2:50 pm, John Clark wrote: > > But very special type of duplicating machine where the laws of physics forbid > anyone from observing any of the duplicates that the machine has made, so the > personal pronoun "you" never causes ambiguity. > > John K Clark So thinking

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > >> On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb wrote: >> >> >> MWI doesn't explain the probabilities.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/28/2015 11:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The best text on non-relativistic QM is by Asher Peres and it's available *free* online. http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf This is his treatment of MW: *Ever

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 03:24:35PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > In other words, it doesn't appear to avaoid the problem with MWI > pointed out by Dawid and Thebault: > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9542/1/Decoherence_Archive.pdf > > You effectively assume the Born rule in order to get you

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If there is something to understand about why X happened, if there is a > reason for it, then X is not random. You've got to think what "random" > means. > > Counter-example: step 3 of UDA. > Bullshit. > You are still stuck by this? > I always ge

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:48:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 6:29 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined. Tegmark gave an interesting version of how to get Born's rule from MWI, which seemed to have legs. Deutsch

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:48:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/1/2015 6:29 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined. > > > >Tegmark gave an interesting version of how to get Born's rule from > >MWI, which seemed to have legs. Deutsch gave one based

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:16 PM, LizR wrote: >> Who's personal experience? >> > > > Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a > diary as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment. > (This is obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it simpl

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 6:29 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined. Tegmark gave an interesting version of how to get Born's rule from MWI, which seemed to have legs. Deutsch gave one based on decision theory that is admittedly unsatisfying. My own derivatio

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:32:00PM +1300, LizR wrote: > Russell, have you a link to your derivation? Or is it in "Theory of > Nothing" ? (sorry I haven't read it for a while) > Yes - appendix D. It is a bit technical - sorry :(. All of the essential details are also in "Why Occam Razor", but t

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb wrote: MWI doesn't explain the probabilities. So what would the p

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > MWI doesn't explain the probabilities. Everett couldn't derive the Born Rule for finding probabilities from first principles, but he could show that if the multiverse exists and follows the Schrodinger Wave Equation then it's deterministic, but there is

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell, have you a link to your derivation? Or is it in "Theory of Nothing" ? (sorry I haven't read it for a while) -- 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 ema

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

I remain unconvinced that that probabilities are undefined. Tegmark gave an interesting version of how to get Born's rule from MWI, which seemed to have legs. Deutsch gave one based on decision theory that is admittedly unsatisfying. My own derivation simply assumed that observers had measure. Th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb > wrote: > > > MWI doesn't explain the probabilities. > > So what would the probabilities be if MWI were true? > > > > > Undefined. > What would it be like to

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have not read Peres' book, and looking at Amazon, it is not cheap! Not cheap??? It's FREE! http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf Nothing's free! You have to pay for download b

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb wrote: MWI doesn't explain the probabilities. So what would the probabilities be if MWI were true? Undefined. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everythin

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb wrote: > MWI doesn't explain the probabilities. So what would the probabilities be if MWI were true? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this grou

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 4:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 16:51, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 27

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 3/1/2015 4:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we made up - so maybe "logically necessary" isn't so necessary after all. I find it interesting that a lo

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 2:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The basis problem is even more severe. If observables are interpreted as hermitian operators in Hilbert space, the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues depend on the basis chosen for that space. The

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 16:51, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >>> >>> Only

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 12:08, meekerdb wrote: > Until you reflect that logic is just about relations between concepts we > made up - so maybe "logically necessary" isn't so necessary after all. I > find it interesting that a lot of "logically necessary" truths were > contradicted by quantum mechani

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 2:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The basis problem is even more severe. If observables are interpreted as hermitian operators in Hilbert space, the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues depend on the basis chosen for that space. The SWE contains observables (operators) such

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

OOPs Should written 8 not 10. Changed my mind about the words without changing the number. Brent On 3/1/2015 3:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote: If B

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote: If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the empty set? I think he wants to mean the unde

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote: > >> If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) >> or { } - the empty set? >> > > I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a > beginning, but a sustaining basis -

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 2:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Jason Resch wrote: There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big pr

Re: Google to Decide Truth

An interesting approach to knowledge as coherence. Still has problems to be resolved as noted in the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03519v1.pdf. Brent On 3/1/2015 11:36 AM, : Google has created an automated system for collecting facts: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329832.700-goo

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

meekerdb wrote: On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Jason Resch wrote: There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem defining collapse. Collapse is e

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote: If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the empty set? I think he wants to mean the underlying basis of everything, not just a beginning, but a sustaining basis - and he doesn't believe in set theory or doesn't believe i

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Schoppenhauer? On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, LizR wrote: > If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or > { } - the empty set? > > I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is > such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0 (zero) or { } - the empty set? I am not sure what evidence there is for a creator, but even if there is such evidence that doesn't answer the question at the top of the thread - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It just c

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Jason Resch wrote: There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem defining collapse. Collapse is easily defined.

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 16:52, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun >> "you"? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world >> with only one version of you. What about the

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 1 March 2015 at 14:29, John Clark wrote: > Who's personal experience? > > Bruno makes it clear that he only considers what someone writes in a diary as being what counts for the purposes of the thought experiment. (This is obviously a proxy for memory in most situations, but it simplifies matt

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem >>> defining collapse. >> >> > Collapse is easily defined. No one has yet given an adequate account of > probability within the Everettian program

Re: FPI

On 3/1/2015 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Only personal experience is considered. Who's personal experience? All the possible one appearing in the thought experience. In the functionalist theory of mind that allows for duplication or substitution of brains, answers to questions of "

Google to Decide Truth

Google has created an automated system for collecting facts: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329832.700-googles-factchecking-bots-build-vast-knowledge-bank.html#.VPNoW3zMSSo as interesting as this is towards the creation of an AI (as something that learns more and gets smarter when provid

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

> On 01-Mar-2015, at 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: > On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Mar

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If we discovered some way of communicating with the other worlds, that > would be interesting Interesting is a understatement, communicating with other worlds would change everything, then the situation really would be equivalent to

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 01 Mar 2015, at 02:29, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> 2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 01 Mar 2015, at 13:01, Samiya Illias wrote: On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One wit

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: > > Why don't you just call it One with a capital O > > > > Because I use "One" f

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

John, thank you for sharing your thoughts and narrative. i'm not sure anyone can provide an 'acceptable explanation' of the Creator/Originator. I think it is simply beyond our comprehension. However, I do believe that there is an overwhelming evidence of creation/origination, thus implying a Creato