On 09 Mar 2015, at 01:39, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Information can only change through learning or forgetting. In a
multiverse (or plenitude), if I learn something, then there must be
other mes that learn the complementary facts.
That is the dematerialising control, and that over yonder is the
horizontal hold, up there is the scanner, those are the doors, and that is
a chair with a panda on it. Sheer poetry, dear boy. Now please stop
bothering me. - Doctor Who
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Information can only change through learning or forgetting. In a
multiverse (or plenitude), if I learn something, then there must be
other mes that learn the complementary facts. If I forget something,
then my observer moment is
On 05 Mar 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/5/2015 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world,
some normal, or some perverse bostromian (made by our
On 05 Mar 2015, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/5/2015 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that would entail: provable(false) - false, which is
equivalent with: not-provable(false). But that is consistency, and
is not provable. So in general, due to the second theorem of
incompleteness, we
On 05 Mar 2015, at 22:38, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics.
On 05 Mar 2015, at 22:44, LizR wrote:
On 6 March 2015 at 06:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical,
it is the
On 06 Mar 2015, at 05:09, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:55:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is
On 3/5/2015 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that would entail: provable(false) - false, which is equivalent with:
not-provable(false). But that is consistency, and is not provable. So in general, due
to the second theorem of incompleteness, we don't have in general that: provable(p) - p.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much
On 6 March 2015 at 06:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is
the physical which needs to be redefined in term
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:20:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That
On 04 Mar 2015, at 22:13, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 09:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some perverse bostromian (made by our normal
descendents who would
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it
is the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or
the logic of the measure one, of that measure)
On 04 Mar 2015, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems that this kind of information theoretic question might
be one that mind-as-computation could address: Why is it we can
only think of the world in these limited, classical ways (if
indeed that's
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The SWE contains observables (operators) such as position, energy
and momentum and so on. What bases do we choose for these
operators? The default, that no one ever questions (to the extent
that I doubt
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some perverse bostromian (made by our normal
descendents who would like to fake our reality). We can test
computationalism V
On 3/5/2015 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some normal, or some
perverse bostromian (made by our normal descendents who would like to fake our
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some step, assuming the
reals, derivative, effectivity, etc. It go in
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:20:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
Hilbert
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
Hilbert space structure, which in turn is a consequence of invoking an
observer and Kolmogorov's
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
Hilbert space structure, which in turn is a consequence of invoking an
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:55:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some
On 04 Mar 2015, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/3/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem
with this statement:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the uninterpreted quantum formalism. The
On 04 Mar 2015, at 02:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/3/2015 12:54 PM, LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude?
In the original theory and in MWI they are conventions.
If they're a convention why would physics care about
On 03 Mar 2015, at 04:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer, that
they stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're not
contradictory, might all bases exist?)
Bases are just coordinate systems
On 03 Mar 2015, at 03:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF
download, and otherwise links to paid versions (eg dead tree, Kindle).
You want appendix D.
On 03 Mar 2015, at 03:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were
supposed to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a branching can only occur if there is a
On 02 Mar 2015, at 05:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.
On 03 Mar 2015, at 04:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 6:18 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were
supposed to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote:
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 bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There
On 04 Mar 2015, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the uninterpreted quantum formalism.
On 5 March 2015 at 09:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some perverse bostromian (made by our normal descendents who
would like to fake our reality). We can test
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some normal, or some
perverse bostromian (made by our normal descendents who would like to fake our
reality). We can test computationalism V perverse bostromism, if you want.
Why should
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is
the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or the logic
of the measure one, of that measure) on the halting programs.
Yes, that's what
On 3/4/2015 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems that this kind of information theoretic question might be one that
mind-as-computation could address: Why is it we can only think of the world in these
limited, classical ways (if indeed that's the case)? For example we do all our
On 3/4/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The SWE contains observables (operators) such as position, energy and momentum and so
on. What bases do we choose for these operators? The default, that no one ever
questions (to the extent that I doubt that many people realize that it is an arbitrary
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's inequality.
Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or
both.
Or the relevant laws of physics are time symmetric.
It is generally assumed
On 3/4/2015 4:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's
inequality.
Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:39:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But it isn't just a matter of what the observer is interested in. He
might well (as a classical physicist) be interested in the position
AND momentum of a particle - but nature forbids him defining a basis
in which he can have both.
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:39:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But it isn't just a matter of what the observer is interested in. He
might well (as a classical physicist) be interested in the position
AND momentum of a particle - but nature forbids him defining a basis
in
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some step, assuming the
reals, derivative, effectivity, etc. It go in the right conceptual
direction, (from the comp
meekerdb wrote:
One reason may be that the primary interactions important for life are
more position than momentum dependent. A tiger can only eat you if you
and the tiger are near each other. If there were beings that lived in
orbit then perhaps they would have evolved to directly
On 3/3/2015 1:36 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:58PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would
physics care about them?
You have an operator in a Hilbert space. This is an entirely abstract
concept until you choose a basis in which to
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of convention
like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would physics care
about them? If they're real, then could they normally be selected by our
nature as beings embedded in space-time and hence strongly biased towards
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem with
this statement:
Tegmark introduces an ensemble theory based on the idea that every self
consistent
On 4 March 2015 at 13:45, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:31:56AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 March 2015 at 11:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Also see
On 3/3/2015 4:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 March 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like
lines of latitude? If they're a
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:31:56AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 March 2015 at 11:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper,
On 4 March 2015 at 13:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the
On 3/3/2015 12:54 PM, LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of convention like lines of
latitude?
In the original theory and in MWI they are conventions.
If they're a convention why would physics care about them?
Because deriving the classical world from
On 4 March 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why would
physics care about them?
You have an operator in a Hilbert space. This
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the uninterpreted quantum formalism. The operators are not
defined /ab initio/. This is
On 4 March 2015 at 11:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem with this
statement:
Tegmark introduces an
LizR wrote:
On 4 March 2015 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude? If they're a convention why
would
On 3/3/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem with this
statement:
Tegmark
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:58PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
that they stop interfering in at least one
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:58PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
that they stop
On 3/2/2015 12:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 17:24, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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:
LizR wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were supposed
to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
Yes, we see superpositions everywhere -- as Brent says, they are a
consequence of the mathematics of Hilbert space. A pure state in one
basis is a
Thanks. I hasten to add that I do already have a dead-tree edition, and
possibly even a screaming roses one, but not to hand.
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF
download, and otherwise
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/28/2015 11:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The best text on non-relativistic QM is by Asher Peres and it's
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF
download, and otherwise links to paid versions (eg dead tree, Kindle).
You want appendix D.
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:00:13PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 14:54,
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer, that they
stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're not contradictory,
might all bases exist?)
Jason
On Monday, March 2, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Do superpositions still occur
On 3 March 2015 at 14:54, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
It's available for free on Russell's website. That part is only a few
pages long, I am still trying to understand it myself, but I think it could
be one of the most significant breakthroughs in science if it's sound.
For
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 09:18:07PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
The great thing about all this is that unlike Copenhagen the MWI does't
need to explain what a observer or a observation is.
That could be the source of all the difficulties wrt Born's rule.
--
Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer, that they
stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're not
contradictory, might all bases exist?)
Given an arbitrary density matrix, there is always a basis in which the
off-diagonal terms vanish
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were supposed to
be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a branching can only occur if there is a difference between 2
universes, for example if a
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF
download, and otherwise links to paid versions (eg dead tree, Kindle).
You want appendix D.
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer, that they stop
interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're not contradictory, might all bases
exist?)
Bases are just coordinate systems for Hilbert space. We choose them. Of
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
that they stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're
not contradictory, might all bases exist?)
Bases are just
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:52:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer,
that they stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're
not contradictory, might all bases exist?)
On 3/2/2015 6:18 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were supposed to
be
branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a branching can
On 2 March 2015 at 17:24, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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
On 2 March 2015 at 17:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's inequality.
Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or both.
Or the relevant laws of physics are time symmetric.
--
You received this message
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
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.
On 3/2/2015 5:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
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
On 3/1/2015 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
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.
On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
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
On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big
problem
defining collapse.
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 bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There is,
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There is,
however, a big problem defining
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)
On 27 February 2015 at 16:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
MWI
On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','meeke...@verizon.net'); wrote:
MWI doesn't explain the probabilities.
So what would the
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 your
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:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','meeke...@verizon.net'); wrote:
On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 March
On 3/1/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
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 on
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
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.
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
On 3/1/2015 6:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 2, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 3/1/2015 5:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:20, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
