Schroedinger wrote an interesting (little known) paper, in 1931.
It is a sort of 'Two-time symmetric interpretation' or 'Two-state vector
quantum formalism', I mean that 'ABL rule', that Aharonov's stuff.
“Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,” Sitz. preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math.
Klasse 9 (19
> Il 3 maggio 2018 alle 16.28 Bruno Marchal ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > > On 1 May 2018, at 18:13, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com >
> wrote:
> >
> >
Here below a point made by Asher Peres.
--
One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern between
the cat alive and the cat dead.
If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the state
ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>]
would be meanin
Brent: I'm suspicious of these fantasy thought experiments. But however
detailed it may be doesn't answer my question as to what it would mean to erase
the welcher weg but not the memory that the weg was detected. I noted that this
is not like a classical erasure of a memory because in this cas
> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 20.49 Brent Meeker ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 al
> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com >
> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct
> > > to say there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal
> > > for measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing
> > > with time-l
As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci".
And the translation is AG
something like "at some random time, in some random place"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from th
> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> > >
> > AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence
> > to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheles
AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try to
make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless, I tend strongly to the
view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN
PRINCIPLE If so, it implies the arrow of time has its origin a
-scerir: IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords
interpretation.
-AG: I disagree. He's clearly criticizing the idea that all possible
measurements are manifested in reality, which surely suggests other people were
advancing a theory he strongly disliked.
. https://gr
I have two questions, on a personal note and curiosity.
1) Generally speaking, at what level do you understand the content
of your links, on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being full comprehension?
I find them difficult and think I should start my study of QM from
the beginning, using the link Brent gav
The short answer is, No. Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger
evolution is unitary only with MWI. So reversible implies MWI. And since we
don't have access to other MWI worlds, reversiblity is impossible for us "*in
principle*.
Bruce
It seems interesting to point out that Vaidman (m
IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords
interpretation.
> Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > > I think Schroedinger
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/34
http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/site/siteArticle.asp?ar=206
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.879
> Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 18.39 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>
> Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly
>
> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility. In trying to
> debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of
> observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually
> proposed that.
>
> Brent
>
>
“The idea that the alterna
K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the
Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions on-line.
https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM
https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek
He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer
(conscious
I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons before
they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way and then forgot
the result. I think the act of recording the result, by a consciousness or
anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no record is made,
I can't copy and paste some pertinent paragraphs of the pdf scerir sent me, but
from reading some of Kennedy's claims, he seem to be saying that although he
doesn't dispute the validity and usefulness of tensor products in quantum
mechanics, unlike other quantum axioms which ARE empirically bas
> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 20.13 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:57:53 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
> > >
> > I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).
> >
> > You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
>
I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995).
You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
I can also send the pdf privately, by email
-serafino
> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent
According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very interesting story.
https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE
> Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 7.00 Brent Meeker ha scritto:
>
>
>
> On 4/23/2018 6:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
> mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > First Principle
>
> > > In case of a collapse theory, the non-local effect is far
> more problematic. Alice then finds a result at her place and because there is
> no other copy of her who found the other result, new information has
> appeared. And that means that Bob's result is now also well
Bruce:
'As has been explained, entanglement is the consequence of any interaction
whatsoever. Measurement is just a particular kind of interaction, one that is
controlled and monitored, but otherwise not special.'
It seems (to me) also interesting the scheme to create, "ex post", distant
enta
Somebody wrote: "So there are probably grades of consciousness, just as there
are grades of ability to communicate. Cats, dogs, and some birds, are quite
high on this scale, but jellyfish are probably quite low. But can you rule out
the possibility that some environmental awareness does not cons
>
> Il 31 dicembre 2017 alle 17.51 Bruno Marchal ha
> scritto:
>
> On 28 Dec 2017, at 08:50, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > Il 27 dice
e his theory makes not definite prediction even about the
> existence of spacetime.
>
> Brent
>
> On 12/27/2017 1:22 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
> > Brent wrote:
> >
> > A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions&qu
Brent wrote:
A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of computationalism have
actually been derived. I think most of them are aspirational. For example,
what is the proof that spacetime is continuous - in fact what is the proof
there is such a thing as spacetime?
Actual
Do you not understand that one of the enduring mysteries of quantum theory is
the emergence of the classical world from the purely quantum substrate?
Decoherence goes a long way towards answering the underlying problems, but
unless something intervenes to exactly zero the off-diagonal terms in t
Weinberg looked into nonlinear QM, and it went nowhere. The linearity of QM is
one thing that makes it so bizarre. If you make QM nonlinear you tend to make
it obey Bell inequalities.
LC
---
N. Gisin, Weinberg Non-linear Quantum-mechanics and Supraluminal
Communications, Phys. Lette
BTW, how is this [1] [2] intensionality, or contextuality, or wholeness, or
undecidibility, or whatever - and related difficulties regarding the existence
of "elements of reality" [3] - understandable within (postulates of) Quantum
Mechanics (and especially within ontological interpretations lik
Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping
gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s
“delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single
particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles. Whe
>> And "recorded" may not bring the right picture to mind. It is
[Bruce, I guess]
>True. The loss of interference due to radiation of IR photons from
>buckeyballs means that information does not have to be 'recorded' in a
>concrete sense -- it just has to be available somewhere, even if
>rec
Spudboy100:
One consciousness, yourself, of with everyone else, spanning other Everett
Universes?
Normal
0
14
false
false
false
IT
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical
categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them.
The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation of
perceptual evidence in terms of reliable conceptual models of the
Just 2 (old) references
On quantum-mechanical automata
-David Z. Albert
Physics Letters A
Volume 98, Issues 5–6, 24 October 1983, Pages 249-252
Abstract
An automaton whose states are solutions of quantum-mechanical equations of
motion is described, and the capacities of such an automaton to “mea
"Quentin Anciaux":
How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything?
You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contradictory.
# David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" (and
also about "introspective measuremen
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/120/the-crisis-of-the-multiverse
--
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.c
John Mikes:
KIM (and Brent, Telmo of course) what should we call " W E I R D " ???
Normal
0
14
false
false
false
IT
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Brent:
>That depends on what you mean by "God". As I've pointed out at length,
>language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal
>person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be
>worshipped. You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to
>a ha
Messaggio originale
Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com
Data: 05/09/2016 0.52
A: "Everything List"
Cc:
Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
Messaggio originale
Da: "Alan Grayson"
Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
A: "Every
Messaggio originale
Da: "Alan Grayson"
Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
A: "Everything List"
Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf
### Hi Alan, re
it is just a link to a webpage, detailed enough
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nuc/identity_map/
see also
http://immortality-roadmap.com/identityeng8.pdf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Bruce Kellett"
>Data: 04/08/2016 4.13
>A:
>Ogg: Re: If you win the lottery, don't expect to live the rest of your
life as a millionaire
>
>On 4/08/2016 11:59 am, smitra wrote:
>> On 04-08-2016 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> On 4/08/2016 9:30 am, smitra wrot
>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Brent Meeker"
>Data: 03/08/2016 8.49
>A:
>Ogg: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise
>
>
>
>On 8/2/2016 11:37 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The suggestion that the o
>> The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one
physical
>> body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that
consciousness
>> is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for
instance.
>> Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental bu
The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one physical
body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that consciousness
is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for instance.
Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental but d
I've been close friends with two mathematicians. The both say,
"I'm a Platonist Monday thru Friday. On the weekend I'm a
nominalist."
Brent
"I raised just
this objection with the (extreme)ultrafinitist
Yessenin Volpin during a lecture of his. He
asked me to be
m
"In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things.
Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge.
Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion;
without Things, there could be no reality.
Thoughts and Things are so intimately combined in our Knowledge,
that we do not
Precisely. I think there is some degree of confusion around the
terms 'local' and 'non-local'. The wave function is non-local in
that it refers to the two separated particles as a single entity,
without specifying any particular interaction between them. This is
a simple consequ
Just an interesting paper by Wigner on hidden variables and Bell's theorem
(of course the paper is well known but it is not so easy to find it).
'On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities'
Wigner, Eugene P.
American Journal of Physics, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp. 1005-1009 (1970)
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH). Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws of physics
can be simulated to any desired precision by a Turing machine
BruceK and Smitra,my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned
math & phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh
in my 1/2 c. of a successful R&D activity in specialty polymers. Since then
(1987), however, I became an agnostic. What reverberates now is th
Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory)
should violate the locality condition.
I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I am
interested. As I explained, and also give references, it seems to me that the
MWI restores both 3p determinacy
Bruce:
I came across the following brief statement by Goldstein et al:
Many-worlds and relational interpretations of quantum theory
[etc.]
# Adrian Kent writes: "Making scientific sense of Everett’s idea is difficult,
as evidenced by the many and generally incompatible attempts to show
.
I think we all agree that QM-with-collapse entails a violation of Locality. The
debate was for the case of the non-single value QM, that is
QM-without-collapse, where all branches of the wave are kept "alive".
Bruno
As somebody wrote "Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality;
e
Messaggio originale
Da: Bruno Marchal
Data: 10/05/2016 18.31
A:
Ogg: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)
On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and
m
scerir wrote:
If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be
measured in A
and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its
possible value,
and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write
Locality Condition
p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) = p_A,L
Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and
most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a
distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non-separability).
What I look for would be a paper which would show that in the MWI there are
action-at-a-d
### W. Myrvold wrote something here
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see
ch. 0.8)
It seems that he is saying that 'action-at-a-distance' is something
that would violate the 'no-signalling theorem' o
Bruno (I suppose) wrote:
But in the MWI, some work needs to be done (at least) to
convince me. I don't even find a paper on the subject, only
paper which shows that MWI is local (some more rigorous than
other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's
Messaggio originale
Da: Brent Meeker
Data: 09/05/2016 18.50
A:
Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI
On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via
Everything List wrote:
Saibal Mitra:
And this is the core of the di
Saibal Mitra:
> And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are
> already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not
> either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has
> become entangled with the environment, but both branches are r
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521
'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality'
Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson
there are several interesting points here
ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture
ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting
etc. etc.
--
>Interesting, but my schedule makes it hard for me to analyse this just
>now. Now, if you think you can argue for non-locality from Renninger
>type of measurement, don't hesitate to show us. Here the point was
>just that the violation of Bell's inequality does not lead to non-
>local action
Bruno writes:
Alice * (up + down) = Alice * up + Alice * down.
If Alice look, as many times as she want at the up/down state of the
particle,
she will find up (and always up) *and* down and always down.
The reason is that once she find up, Alice becomes Alice-up,
and that state does no more f
Da: spudboy100 via Everything List
Data: 28/04/2016 21.46
A:
Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI
Is there any practical technical use for MWI as applied science. Just asking?
Dunno. Quantum computers?
Maybe there is a Many Interpretations Conjecture :-)
Interpretations
of quantum me
BTW.
Frank Wilczek: 'Entanglement Made Simple'
Quantum entanglement is thought to be one of the trickiest concepts
in science, but the core issues are simple. And once understood,
entanglement opens up a richer understanding of concepts
such as the “many worlds” of quantum theory.
https://ww
Messaggio originale
Da: 'scerir' via Everything List
Data: 24/04/2016 9.20
A:
Ogg: R: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn
a short
reviewhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2015/dec/15/book-of-the-year-2015
no, this one is better
http://physicsworld.com/c
a short
reviewhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2015/dec/15/book-of-the-year-2015
Messaggio originale
Da: John Clark
Data: 23/04/2016 23.54
A:
Ogg: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn
I just finished Amanda Gefter’s new book, Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn,
physici
Excellent interview of Scott Aaronson
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answers-every-ridiculously-big-question-i-throw-at-him/
# Yes, there is another one - about "truth" - here
http://closertotruth.com/node/4733
--
You received th
Yes, I see. And there are strange effects, like "unidirectional quantum
steering".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01679http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01231
Difficult (for me) to understand this a-symmetric non-locality in terms of MWI.
s.
Messaggio originale----
Da: 'scerir'
Spudboy100:
"Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from
1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. I am
wondering also if this data is accessible, in principle?" This reminds me of an
old quote: "It is sufficient to destroy
the
BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s
theorems
(locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability,
determinism,
counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still going on ...
Here is some (very short) literature
J.S. Bell’s Conc
Jesse wrote:I don't think this is how it's supposed to work for those who argue
the MWI is local like Deutsch. Rather the idea is that "splitting" into worlds
is local, not global; so one experimenter locally splits into copies that see
|+> and |-> when they measure their particle, likewise the
On 14 Apr 2016, at 20:25, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:MWI: "local" or
not?
There are papers *trying* to explain "local" in MWI. In example:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/504/2/cra
MWI: "local" or not?
There are papers *trying* to explain "local" in MWI. In example:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/504/2/cracow.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2673v3.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0103079
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Eve
From: Bruce Kellett
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:54 AM
[] But to make sense of this mathematically you have to get rid of the
unwanted correlations. Most do this by fiat -- the worlds are orthogonal
FAPP. But that is not principled either. Mathematically, we take a partial
trace. But
>That's the same as Social Security in the U.S.I suppose the
>difference is that Social Security is only supposed to be a kind of
>minimal pension and people are expected to have private pensions or
>savings in addition.
>
>Brent
Exactly. But here in Euroland the financial situation is this
I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf
>Messaggio originale
>Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>Data: 19/08/2015 8.40
>A:
>Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics
>
>See also Arnold here
>
>http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
--
You rece
See also Arnold here
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
>Messaggio originale
>Da: meeke...@verizon.net
>Data: 19/08/2015 2.17
>A:
>Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics
>
>I like Wenmackers essay too.
>
>http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf
>
BTW there is an amusing paper by (the manyworlder) Lev Vaidman.
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006
--
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 ever
Putnam (in his "What is mathematical truth?") wrote: "The question of realism,
as Kreisel long ago put it, is the question of the objectivity of mathematics
and not the question of the existence of mathematical objects".
scerir
But what did he mean by "objectivity"? Agreement? We agree on man
-It's true that the Platonic universe contains all mathematical structures,
including trivial or uninteresting ones,
-Not only trivial and uninteresting, but also contrary to the ones that are
interesting.
Brent
Putnam (in his "What is mathematical truth?") wrote: "The question of realism,
True randomness is not computable by (at least one) definition of
"random".
But a good pseudo-random number generator would not be
detectable for many steps (SFMT period = 2^216091).
-Brent
That reminds me of Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Therefore, it is not contrary to
divine providen
( There is a little discussion about Vic's paper in https://www.facebook.
com/sabine.hossenfelder)
scerir
--
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 ev
101 - 186 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
