Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 15 Dec 2019, at 16:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 6:55 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> every time I ask you for an example of a program in nothing but > >> "arithmetical reality" making a real calculation and producing a real > >> result

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 6:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> every time I ask you for an example of a program in nothing but >> "arithmetical reality" making a real calculation and producing a real >> result you refer me to ASCII characters printed in the pages of a dusty old >> book. > > > *> Well,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 12 Dec 2019, at 23:09, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> A good operational definition of "real" is something that produces > >> results, so you need to explain why some programs, like those inside a > >>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A good operational definition of "real" is something that produces >> results, so you need to explain why some programs, like those inside a >> computer connected to a power supply, produce results, but other programs, >> like those printed

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 10 Dec 2019, at 16:35, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:23 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > mind is not much what it does, as what it feels, > > I don't think much of the Star Trek/Mr.Spock philosophy. I think something > could be conscious and

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 10 Dec 2019, at 21:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2019 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I wrote "my apple" so it is indicial and I define it ostensively, which is >>> concrete. >> >> Relatively to you and me. It seems concrete because we have

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/10/2019 7:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:23 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: /> mind is not much what it does, as what it feels,/ I don't think much of the Star Trek/Mr.Spock philosophy. I think something could be conscious and unintelligent

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/10/2019 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I wrote "my apple" so it is indicial and I define it ostensively, which is concrete. Relatively to you and me. It seems concrete because we have billions of interconnected amoebas working hard to make us easily recognising fruits from poison and

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:23 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> mind is not much what it does, as what it feels,* I don't think much of the Star Trek/Mr.Spock philosophy. I think something could be conscious and unintelligent but not the other way around. And I don't think it's feelings that

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 8 Dec 2019, at 21:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/8/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 7 Dec 2019, at 00:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/6/2019 6:34 AM,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 8 Dec 2019, at 12:51, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 5:01:24 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > When doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude and method, we know that > we can only refute a metaphysical theory. We can’t prove anything positive >

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/8/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Dec 2019, at 00:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/6/2019 6:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 5:01:24 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > When doing metaphysics with the scientific attitude and method, we know > that we can only refute a metaphysical theory. We can’t prove anything > positive about Reality, nor even that there is one. That would be

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 7 Dec 2019, at 01:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/6/2019 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Dec 2019, at 02:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/5/2019 4:28 PM,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 7 Dec 2019, at 00:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/6/2019 6:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/5/2019 9:05 AM,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 7 Dec 2019, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/6/2019 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/6/2019 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Dec 2019, at 02:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/5/2019 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/6/2019 6:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/5/2019 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Dec 2019, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Thu,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/6/2019 6:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 6 Dec 2019, at 02:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/5/2019 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/5/2019 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Dec 2019, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:44 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/5/2019 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/5/2019 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Dec 2019, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:44 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/5/2019 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This absurd conclusion depends only on the single world assumption, it's a consequence of

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Dec 2019, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The "competition" is irrelevant to consciousness in this case > > ? > > Bruno > Sorry. Blame Google's autocorrect in the on-line email editor. Google makes a living out of attempting to

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 5 Dec 2019, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:44 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This absurd conclusion depends only on the single world assumption,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 5 Dec 2019, at 01:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:33 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 3 Dec 2019, at 23:06, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM Bruno Marchal > >

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 5 Dec 2019, at 00:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This absurd conclusion depends only on the single world assumption, it's a consequence of the non-existence of counterfactuals. Clearly actions as a

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 4 Dec 2019, at 21:04, John Clark wrote: > > > https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/soul-dust-nicholas-humphrey-review > > > > > we do, after all, know something about the intrinsic nature of

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 4 Dec 2019, at 18:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2019 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I am a scientist, and I like Mechanism, not because I would think it is >> true, but because the mind-body problem becomes a mathematical problem >> (extracting

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 4 Dec 2019, at 12:03, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 9:06:07 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 12/3/2019 6:36 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> The opposite of experiential realism. >> >> • A Defense of Experiential Realism: The Need to take >>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:44 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > This absurd conclusion depends only on the single world assumption, it's a > consequence of the non-existence of counterfactuals. Clearly

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:33 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 3 Dec 2019, at 23:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Dec 2019, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> My brain currently has only one state. >> >> How do you know that? How could you

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/3/2019 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This absurd conclusion depends only on the single world assumption, it's a consequence of the non-existence of counterfactuals. Clearly actions as a response to counterfactual inputs must be relevant for consciousness, It's not clear to me. How

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 2:05:21 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > >> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/soul-dust-nicholas-humphrey-review >> >> > >> *we do, after all, know something about the intrinsic nature of matter, >> over and above everything we know in knowing

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> > https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/soul-dust-nicholas-humphrey-review > > > *we do, after all, know something about the intrinsic nature of matter, > over and above everything we know in knowing the equations of physics. Why? > Because we know the intrinsic nature of consciousness

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/4/2019 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am a scientist, and I like Mechanism, not because I would think it is true, but because the mind-body problem becomes a mathematical problem (extracting physics from intensional arithmetic/computer science), and we can already test the

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 9:06:07 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/3/2019 6:36 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > The opposite of experiential realism. > > • A Defense of Experiential Realism: The Need to take > >Phenomenological Reality

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 23:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 3 Dec 2019, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> My brain currently has only one state. > How do you know that? How could you

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 09:58, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Nov 2019, at 22:59, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 2:49:17 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> On Friday,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 09:51, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:21:53 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > The reason is that many different > quasi-classical brain states will be consistent with that thought...not > only different quantum superpositions. > > > Brent

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/3/2019 6:36 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: The opposite of experiential realism. • A Defense of Experiential Realism: The Need to take Phenomenological Reality on its own Terms One wonders what

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 1:58:20 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/3/2019 12:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:21:53 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> The reason is that many different >> quasi-classical brain states will be consistent with that

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 3 Dec 2019, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > My brain currently has only one state. > > How do you know that? How could you know that. > It is a pretty good hypothesis. > Other states may be consistent with my current conscious state,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/3/2019 12:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:21:53 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:  The reason is that many different quasi-classical brain states will be consistent with that thought...not only different quantum superpositions. Brent

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 05:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 12/2/2019 5:39 PM, smitra wrote: >> On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift >>> wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM smitra > wrote: > On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift > > > > wrote: > > > > "even in many-worlds

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 2:39:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Nov 2019, at 22:59, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 2:49:17 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 3 Dec 2019, at 02:39, smitra wrote: > > On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift >> wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:21:53 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > The reason is that many different > quasi-classical brain states will be consistent with that thought...not > only different quantum superpositions. > > > Brent > > Doesn't Penrose think that there cannot be thoughts

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 30 Nov 2019, at 02:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 5:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 29 Nov 2019, at 22:59, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 2:49:17 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > In any case, in the case of MWI, in the types of examples Sean Carroll talks >

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

> On 28 Nov 2019, at 19:38, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 27,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 03-12-2019 05:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 12/2/2019 5:39 PM, smitra wrote: On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 12/2/2019 5:39 PM, smitra wrote: On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 11/28/2019 4:17

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 03-12-2019 03:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM smitra wrote: On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift wrote: "even in many-worlds you end up on only one branch (stochastically)" Sean Carroll himself has said (in

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM smitra wrote: > On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > "even in many-worlds you end up on only one branch (stochastically)" > > > > Sean Carroll himself has said (in a tweet) that if you let >

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 02-12-2019 09:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Right. The

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > >> On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> Right. The subsystem we are considering (an electron fired at a

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > Right. The subsystem we are considering (an electron fired at a screen or > through an S-G magnet) is just a subspace of the full

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/28/2019 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 5:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: This was the issue about mass raised weeks ago when Sean Carroll's book

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 2:49:17 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> In any case, in the case of MWI, in the types of examples Sean Carroll >> talks about, here's a concrete case: >> >> *In one branch,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 12:33:26 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:30:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:56:57 PM UTC-6, smitra wrote: >>> >>> On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> > On Fri, Nov

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:30:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:56:57 PM UTC-6, smitra wrote: >> >> On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Thursday, November

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:56:57 PM UTC-6, smitra wrote: > > On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell > > > wrote: > > > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: > >> > >>> But Sean

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into being as the MWI branches, so whatever charge Sean

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> That electron existed in a electrically neutral universe, if you >> multiply that by "a very large number" you've got a very large number of >> electrically >> neutral universes and charge conservation

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into >>> being

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 5:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > This was the issue about mass raised weeks ago when Sean Carroll's book > came out. > > There has never been an answer. > > > If you

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into >> being as the MWI branches, so whatever charge

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Really there are no duplicate Carroll's or Crowell's or anyone else. There > are amplitudes for such with a distribution given by a decoherent set, and > phenomenologically any of these in such a branch

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/28/2019 2:36 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 10:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:19 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/27/2019 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:53 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Much the same would happen if the cosmos has a net angular momentum, > where that spacetime would have features of the G**ödel universe.* And if the universe rotated then it would be possible to build

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 4:52:26 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift wrote: >> >>> >> *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:26:39 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 4:52:26 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> > *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows >> exponentially .* >> > > There are both positive coulombs and negative coulombs, when you add

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:26:39 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 7:07 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > The trouble seems to be that this account is different from the account > given in the energy case, where we were supposed to weight the sub-branches > by their corresponding Born weights. That's because the charge conservation explanation

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >>> Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems >>> likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't seem >>> like much of a problem. >>> >>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows > exponentially .* > There are both positive coulombs and negative coulombs, when you add them all up in each branch you get exactly zero, and zero times a number, even a very

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems >> likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't seem >> like much of a problem. >> > > > *> Consider firing an electron at a screen. There are a

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> I think your*

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:19 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2019 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 11/27/2019 4:05

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/27/2019 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2019 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:05:29 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz > wrote: On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:05:29 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz > > wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:46:46 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:39 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47 AM Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> I think your* [Brent Meeker] *point about other

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 9:51:55 AM UTC+11, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> *> I think your* [Brent Meeker] *point about other conservation laws is >>> interesting -- especially

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:39 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> I

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> *> I think your* [Brent Meeker] *point about other conservation laws is >>> interesting -- especially

  1   2   >