Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at

RE: has evidence pointing to the exisrance of a new boson been found. See arvix link to paper

New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle A.J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlos, L. Csige, J. Gulyas, M. Koszta, B. Szihalmi, J. Timar, D.S. Firak, A. Nagy, N.J. Sas, A. Krasznahorkay(Submitted on 23 Oct 2019) We observed electron-positron pairs from the electro-magnetically

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 5:22:55 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> >> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further >> assumptions. Why do you

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort trying to derive the

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and >>> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there >>> is just realism and nonrealism

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and >> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there >> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of >> "Realism" at all, yo

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an > effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from > th

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > probabilities refer to. * > > >> The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win. > > * > Right. * > So you now think it's

Re: The problem with physics

> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort > trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the > Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. > >

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:52 AM John Clark wrote: > > I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and > "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there > is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of > "Realism" at all, you j

Computatonal Matter

Looks like good stuff. https://books.google.com/books/about/Computational_Matter.html?id=Qu1lDwAAQBAJ (Springer, 2018) @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 f

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> A diffraction pattern emerges in video

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 2:43 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker'  > wrote: > /The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the probabilities refer to. / The best betting strategy to follow if you wa

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:  A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the vid

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it >>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a >>> physical object, >>> >> >> >> I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even pro

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > probabilities refer to. * The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win. John K Clark > -- You received this messag

Quantum Cognition, Neural Oscillators, and Negative Probabilities

*Quantum Cognition, Neural Oscillators, and Negative Probabilities* Jose Acacio de Barros, Gary Oas https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quantum-Cognition%2C-Neural-Oscillators%2C-and-Negative-Barros-Oas/0fd69bc6e1e5f276ed70cb2a72c33364ba543483 This review paper has three main goals. First, to d