On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:49, LizR wrote:
By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day what's the oddest
prime number?
Fortunately, I got the right answer!
I would say 2. LOL
Was it 2 that you found? To be odd is very subjective here :)
Bruno
--
You received this message because you
On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/15/2013 3:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is
not. In everything, or
On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/15/2013 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or
generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all
the rest is not. In everything,
On 15 Oct 2013, at 23:04, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable
arithmetical truth
(by Gödel).
Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that
uncomputible
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
2:47 AM (8 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth
(by Gödel).
Richard:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Measurement-induced collapse of quantum wavefunction captured in slow
motion.
http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-snatch-a-peep-into-quantum-paradox-1.13899?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20131015
The headline is sensationlist and
On 16 Oct 2013, at 17:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com
2:47 AM (8 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable
arithmetical truth (by Gödel).
Richard: I guess I am
On 16 October 2013 06:02, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible
arithmetical truth can produce the physical.
Since you read my paper you know that I think computations in this
universe if holographic are limited to
By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day what's the oddest prime
number?
Fortunately, I got the right answer!
--
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
On 10/16/2013 3:49 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day what's the oddest prime number?
Fortunately, I got the right answer!
2, because it's the only one that's even.
Brent
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who think in binary and those who don't.
--
You
Or the largest prime number less than 10^120, because it's the biggest
prime number...?!?!? :)
There are two secrets to success.
The first is not to give away everything you know...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 14 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25,
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain)
is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In
everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This contradicts everything I have ever though Bruno was
claiming.
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In
everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This contradicts
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/15
On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is
not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare
and exceptional.
Richard: Wow. This
On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized
brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In
everything, or just
On 10/15/2013 3:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain)
is
computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything,
or just
in
On 10/15/2013 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is
computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in
arithmetic, the computable is rare
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth
(by Gödel).
Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible
arithmetical truth can produce the physical.
Since you read my
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are
these universes distinct from one
On 11 Oct 2013, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
On 11 Oct 2013, at 23:46, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How
On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:12, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an
On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:14, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:04, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 11:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
The UD doesn't output anything. If it did, then certainly, the output
could not be an uncountable set due to the diagonalisation argument.
Yes, I wasn't speaking very precisely.
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:05, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:42:06 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those
On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote:
It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as
far as I can tell from Bruno's responses, but he seems
confident it's not insurmountable.
Bruno's so confident that he argues that there
On 12 Oct 2013, at 04:52, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of
On 12 Oct 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means.
of
the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic?
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian
quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science
IN PRESS.
ABSTRACT
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are
these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinite subsets
on a binary measurement, or do
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or
do infinitely many come into existence in
If you subdivide a continuum, I assume you can do so in a way that gives
the required probabilities. For example if the part of the multiverse that
is involved in performing a quantum measurement with a 50-50 chance of
either outcome is represented by the numbers 0 to 1, you can divide those
into
infinite branches. Why is this problematic?
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum
mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics
That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this
argument about the supposed probability problem with MWI is still live,
when that explanation seems perfectly coherent.
On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04:40 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
If you subdivide a continuum, I assume
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of
irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as
those between 0.1 and 1. So extrapolating to universes, the very low
probability, white rabbit universes also occur an infinite number of times,
, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication of
the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic?
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian
quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy
. The probability problem in Everettian quantum
mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple,
emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The
possible outcomes of measurement as per ‘orthodox
branches. Why is this problematic?
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian
quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN
PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number
of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an
infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
It is
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary
On 10/11/2013 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement.
How are
these universes distinct from one another?
They aren't 'distinct'. The hypothesis is that every
On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote:
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers
between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1.
No, the two are exactly the same uncountable infinity, because there is a 1-to-1
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets in
great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable
infinities (as Russell points out)), whereas it may be a problem for
Interesting. I wasn't
On 10/11/2013 2:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are
On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form
a continuum, which I don't think
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
I don't think being uncountable makes it any
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{-n}, where n is
the number of leading bits in common
On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote:
It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as far as I can tell from
Bruno's responses, but he seems confident it's not insurmountable.
Bruno's so confident that he argues that there must be a measure (because he's assumed
comp is true
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit
output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that the UD has
started. Right?
Its not the
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:07:57 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets
in
great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
the cardinality of the reals, and a natural
On 10/11/2013 4:45 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit
output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last
On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given
state of the
of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication
of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic?
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum
mechanics persists. British Jour
.
http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.pdf http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.pdf
Publications (a Ph.D. in Philosophy, London School of Economics, May 2012)
‘The Probability Problem in Everettian Quantum Mechanics Persists’, British
Journal
for Philosophy of Science, forthcoming
‘The Aharanov Approach
for results
as 'statistical' values.
JM
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
wrote:
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian
quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN
PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum
Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum
mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS.
ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple,
emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The
possible outcomes
68 matches
Mail list logo
