On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the
Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation
This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is
many-world.
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of
something, doing this processing, this
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:50, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body
problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of
other minds.
Actually, I have wondered
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:51, LizR wrote:
The Tao that can be named...
... is NOT the Tao.
Indeed. this is common with most notion of (unique) God, despite most
institutionalized religion fall in the trap.
The comp religion has this more in common with taoism. On the divine
truth, the
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one
might make an argument
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal
present moment across so here's another approach with a thought
experiment
To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they
share the same
2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Decoherence is a well
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Jason Resch wrote:
Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced /
instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role.
Yes. It has to be like that. Stopping programs should contribute to 0,
in the measure conflict.
So we are
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You state The UD is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement
I've heard here today in all manner of
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:04, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the
program that is identical to your mind.
To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences
etc are
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:29, LizR wrote:
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as
UD* - I made the same mistake!)
Good :)
will eventually contain your mind.
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence
of states, with the right
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or
alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
Then there is a collapse of the wave. I thought you disagree
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure
of all things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the Integers, all else is the invention of man.
man is a measure of all things is a quote
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:41, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason
(apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first
instruction of the first programme, then the first
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and
10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ...
Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree!
No logicians at all would ever disagree on this. They
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:52, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus
mathematical truth
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers.
(Consider OTP encryptions).
In which language?
A program fortran will be distinguished by the grammar of Fortran.
In some language all numbers will be program.
Then , for
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against
smaltalk, which won against the Actor model, but the idea is the same,
basically. It is efficacious, but the math
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could
contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle.
I don't think the UD does, however.
The UD emulates all quantum computer and many sort of non
deterministic processes, including all
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise
oracles is cheating!
But it
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not
compute it in real time which is what reality actually does which is
my point.
In real time ?! In comp (and
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that
Jason,
Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in
P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. This is another
way the clock time P-time distinction works to produce reality as it
exists
No, the particles MUST have their properties determined at
Brent,
No, the oppositely aligned spins is NOT a hidden variable and there is no
FTL. Reread my post
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that
Jason,
Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains how all
randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that randomness is the
lack of any governing deterministic equations when the mini-spacetimes that
emerge from quantum events have be aligned due to linking at
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:40:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:34, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It could be said that the electric force, figuratively if not literally
(but maybe literally, given a rehabilitated view of physics), creates time.
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially
in P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. This
is another way the clock time P-time distinction works to produce
reality as
On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains
how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that
randomness is the lack of any governing deterministic equations when
the
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to
Dear Bruno,
I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions
between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the
many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be
shown that at the separation level there will also be one but
One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional model,
implies that information is coming from the future, and handshaking with the
paste to create the present. Price's old book seems to imply this as well.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:32, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are
using here.
I quite like whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
I quite like
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
An observer can only experience a reality that is not
contradictory to its existence.
Tell this to the dictators.
Usually a reality guarantied some local consistency by definition of a
reality (modeled by the notion of models in logic).
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against smaltalk,
which won against
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism
is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:26, meekerdb wrote:
He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the
UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial
computation.
What does a physicist? It looks outside, and seem to be believe in a
special unique universal number,
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is
CORRECT! THe question then becomes: What is time?
It's a computed partial ordering relation between events.
The 1p time looks
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute
it in real time
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right
now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
I answered this two times already. The answer is 1.
At last a straight answer, the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes to
dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via
arithmetical
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes
Jason,
No, you simply don't understand what I'm saying, what my model is. There
are two independent separate mini spacetime fragments here. When you
understand that you will see how it works and avoids the problems you point
out...
You should not feel bad that you missed it. It goes against
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
time
Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's
incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught
us
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
With decoherence everything is a wavefunction
No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of
John,
Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather
than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM.
I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points.
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark
Hey Craig,
What is the origin of the quote? Also, what privileges the process of
'introspection' to reveal anything contrary to the hypothesis that we are
machines? Isn't introspection a bit of a dubious test for finding out a
thing's machinehood?
Finally, I'm not so sure that it is
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence of states, with the
right probabilities, and for this you need the complete run of the UD, because your next
moment is determioned by the FPI on all computations.
That's a point
On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies
many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those
wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single
world.
Please, brainy people, have a go at my crosswords!
http://crossswords.wordpress.com/
:-)
--
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
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure of all
things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the Integers, all else is the invention
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random
number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting
algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ...
On 12/28/2013 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it
in real
time which is
On 12/28/2013 4:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in P-time, which is
effectively the processor cycles of comp.
No, the computational steps have nothing to do with the computed time. Just as when I run
a Monte Carlo
Dear Bruno, when you wrote:
*...arithmetic number's dreams = physics*
*OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. *
*And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...*
for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!) incoherent.
That entire
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident
Brent,
Maybe in your theory of reality but not in mine...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in
P-time, which is effectively the
On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional
model, implies that information is coming from the future, and
handshaking with the paste to create the present. Price's old book
seems to imply this as well.
On 28 December 2013 23:46, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the
On 29 December 2013 00:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:53, Jason Resch wrote:
Would any universal number do?
That is what Bruno speculatively has suggested. I am not so sure.
Sometimes I think an if-then-else-statement contains all that is
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
The MWI
List:
Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for R A N D O M? (my
non-Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing
the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it
exbeliebig = kind of: whatever I like)
My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be:
John,
I think there are a couple of senses in which the word random can be used:
1. Uncompressibe (maximum entropy) for some information, sequence, or data
2. Unpredictable in theory or practice
a. When in theory, a non-deterministic process such as such as with
wave-function collapse or
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
proposed. Do
Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate
only that numbers. but a simple counting
Something to think about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It
says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
On 12/28/2013 1:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com
wrote:
One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional model, implies that
information is coming from the future, and handshaking with the paste to create
It's not my theory, it's Bruno's. But in my reality I have often run simulations in which
the computed time of events was not in the same order as the time of their computation.
Brent
On 12/28/2013 1:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Maybe in your theory of reality but not in mine...
Dear Brent,
Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a
sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function
formulation...
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Jason Resch wrote:
indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new
type of randomness (discovered by Bruno).
I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there can be
first-person randomness even in a universe which is deterministic from a
third-person
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:10:08 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig,
What is the origin of the quote?
It was just something that someone said on Facebook, but I feel like it
represents the thinking of a lot of people.
Also, what privileges the process of
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a
random
On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense?
Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation...
I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation.
Jason, thanks for your help. I am afraid it does not help me much.
Whatever you listed is contrary to my agnostic doubts.
Your #1:since I do not accept p[hysical phenomena as well understood
'reality', entropy is doubtful. It is bound to the level of known
circumstances (the maximum disorder that
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process.
That's the meaning.
However we have to be careful because there is another kind of
non-computability due to either not enough input data or computing power.
The weather would be a combination of
On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and
Fuchs.
No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take
the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
interpretations on them...
EDgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I
On 12/28/2013 4:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason and John,
If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the
meaning.
That's one possible meaning, although it can only strictly apply to infinite sets of
something. I think of random as just being an
On 12/27/2013 10:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:37, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch
Brent,
You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in
decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at
all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations
on them...
But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do
you get from there to the definite observation?
On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results
yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in
calculating them with no reference at all to either of your
Liz,
OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that we are unaware of
the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled
(correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. That is precisely
what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is.
But the next step is
Brent,
You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it
wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence
that produces results but of course we do...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM,
Brent,
Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct.
That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic.
It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish
alternative interpretation
Edgar
On Saturday, December
Hi Brent,
Allow me to use your words directly:
Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities
and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of
them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an
illusion due to our
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres
and Fuchs.
No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is
to just take the math
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot
Brent,
What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality
math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because
events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc.
only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how
Dear Edgar,
Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter
and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did
you have with this idea?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
What we need to
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
