> On 3 Dec 2018, at 16:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:42:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Nov
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:42:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday,
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> What can be inferred
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you
>> start from
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you
> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation
> and you
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you
> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation*
> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of a state*,
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 18:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>
>>
What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you
start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent
formulation/*and you premise that there is a probability interpretation
of a state*/, then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule
provides the
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 5:06:50 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10,
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>>
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>
>
>
> I can do that.
>
I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists
> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
I can do that. Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version
of my thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one
Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
--
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
