date:20131228



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 relativistic) entails that  
if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base  
my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1  
view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity  
of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the  
computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the  
physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in  
any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the  
consciousness flux in arithmetic.
With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a  
local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any  
sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is  
no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of  
the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small  
compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big  
compared to a unique local physical cosmos.


Bruno






On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net  
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest  
long ago



You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when  
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is  
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by  
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds  
to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the  
wave function  never collapses.


If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that  
is de facto many-worlds.



but the self-evident experience

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule  
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use  
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.


of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special  
relativity.



Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds,  
you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can  
travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything  
travels at the speed of light)


I'm not familiar with this result

I am  referring to Bell's theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
explained well here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables  
can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum  
measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two  
possible explanations:
1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately  
effects the state of the other particle
2. when

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



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 theory is  
elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science  
(mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by  
incompleteness).


True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is  
based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from  
arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put:


arithmetic  number's dreams = physics

OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And  
experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science.


Bruno




Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

 He did answer and did it correctly,

 I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?


I quote myself:
 That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to  
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything  
about  the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will  
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person  
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does  
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?


1  (I already answered this, note)


No you did not.

 from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.


That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
John Clark's answer: 7 billion.

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. Not just right  
now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- 
view.





 Can you explain why you ask?

Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between  
1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno  
Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first  
person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark  
understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at  
all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person  
experiences views from their first person points of view existed on  
planet Earth right now.

It is a simple question, what is the number?


In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such  
human 1-view.

In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.

OK?

This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am  
duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow  
exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views.  
But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the
copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they  
write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly  
unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when  
iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a  
long enough time).


You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason  
you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.


So what about step 7?
How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical  
experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and  
assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal  
Dovetailer?


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 work?



In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete  
physical reality, in some local sense.



Could this Turing universal/sigma_1-complete in a local sense be  
the exact criteria required to define the observations 3-experiences  
of individuals or is it the 1-experiences of individuals (observers)  
in keeping with the definition of an observer as the intersection of  
infinitely many computations?


I think the UDA answers this question. You need Turing universality,  
but also the FPI, which in some sense comes from mechanism, but not  
necessarily universality, which has, here, only an indirect  
relevance in the definition of what is a computation in arithmetic.









We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal  
machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical  
reality).
Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp,  
we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that  
such primitiveness cannot solve the mind-body problem when made  
into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness.


It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body  
problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of  
other minds.


UDA formulates the problem, and show how big the mind-body problem is,  
even before tackling the other minds problem. But something is said.  
In fact it is easy to derive from the UDA the following assertions:


comp + explicit non-solipsism entails sharable many words or a core  
linear physical reality.


But comp in fact has to justify the non-solipsism, and this is begun  
through the nuance Bp  p versus Bp  Dt. Normally the linearity  
should allow the first person plural in the  Dt nuance case.


Keep in mind that UDA does not solve the problem, but formulate it.  
AUDA go more deep in a solution, and the shape of that solution (like  
UDA actually) provides already information contradicting the  
Aristotelian theology (used by atheists and the main part of  
institutionalized abramanic religion).


Bruno






Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all  
assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic).


The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is  
derived from basically just


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

or just

x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x *0 = 0
 x*s(y) = x*y + x





http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 about this. How do all these threads of  
computation which are assumed to exist in arithmetic actually  
manage to communicate with each other?



Some universal system (in arithmetic, thus), can emulate interacting  
universal systems. Indeed the UD simulates even all possible  
interactions between universal systems. The only problem which remains  
is in the search of why such universal systems (allowing interactions)  
win the measure battle, but for this we have to extract the measure  
first, and then the interaction from them. If we add interaction,  
without extracting it from comp, we are doing traditional physics, and  
we lost the qualia and all the non communicable stuff, and we put  
again the mind under the rug.


Stephen critics seems to miss the point that UDA *formulates* the  
constraints we have to follow in solving the mind body problem. he  
could as well say that UDA miss the gravitation law, Maxwell's  
equation, the H bosons, and actually even space and time. We are only  
at the beginning here.  All what comp already say, is that the  
possible answer are closer to Plato's theology than Aristotle  
theology, which means that comp forces us to backtrack on 1500 years  
on theology, to get the comp-correct physics.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: God or not?



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 wise remains silent.


To get the nature of buddha, we have to kill all buddhas, some  
buddhists said. I take this as a perception that in science, including  
theological science, we have to be 100% skeptical on any authoritative  
arguments, even those brought naturally by nature.


Bruno






--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...



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 simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a  
good starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing must  
exist, such as the facts of simple arithmetic, and see what  
happens. Descartes tried this when he started with his own thoughts  
(i.e., as we generally assume, with the idea of computation). Which  
is pretty darn close to assuming just abstract relations exist...


My favourite answer to the question Why is there something rather  
than nothing? is There isn't!


Hmm... You still have to assume something, like 0 and its  
successors, or the empty set + some operation adding sets from it  
(like reflexion and comprehension), etc.


Yes, there isn't! refers to the assumption of a material universe.


I knew, but as many confuse universe with physical universe, it is  
good to insist on this.





What exists in this view is only what must exist,


But 0 don't need to exist for purely logical reason (contra the  
feeling of Russell and Whitehead). Logicism has failed, and we know  
that we must postulates some axioms to get the zero, the successors  
and the laws. then it is amazing that we get already all computable  
functions from just addition and multiplication, so that is enough for  
the comp ontology (by UDA).




namely certain abstract relations (the famous 2+2=4 and 17 being  
prime). If one can get the rest (or the appearance thereof) to drop  
out somehow from things which are logical and/or mathematical  
necessities, you will have answered that age old question Why is  
there something rather than nothing?


We get an anwer for where the appearance of a physical reality, and  
consciousness come from.


And, we get also an explanation, not of where numbers or combinators  
come from, but of why we need to postulate them and why we cannot  
prove them from less. So there is a last unsolvable mystery, but comp  
explains entirely whay it has to be like that. the origin of the  
numbers is in our intrinsic machine's black spot. We need them to just  
be able to give sense to the question.






- this is why I have a lot of time and indeed admiration for comp,  
and also Max Tegmark's MUH, because they are both trying to do this.


I have always been interested in this question, but many answers  
seem to just push it back onto something else, God being the main  
offender.


Yes. using God as an explanation is not valid. With comp, God, or just  
Truth,  is just another problem, so to speak. That amkes it even more  
interesting ... and complex.


Bruno





--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 based on Godel numbers and a choice of a  
numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers  
that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the  
interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of  
concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do,  
AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many  
observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many  
computations, but such a description would itself be the content of  
some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel  
numbering scheme.

  Something doesn't seem right about this!

It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines  
- which doesn't make it wrong, of course.


I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said  
something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at  
least to my limited understanding.


I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say.


I should have read this before answering. Hope you are not too much  
disappointed :)



My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and  
I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains  
but much larger, long-running computations such as those that  
correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves.


Yes. I suspect both deep (in Bennett sense) computations, + the  
physical symmetrical and linear core. This would makes us both  
relatively very numerous in our type of reality, and relatively very  
rare at some other level. I suspect also the FPI relative random  
oracles to play some role in the continuous self-multiplication. But  
this is speculation, and should be derived from self-reference alone,  
to keep intact the exploitation of the G* minus G difference, on the  
intensional variants, to have the qualia and their non communicable  
feature.





The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and  
therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious  
computations such as ours than the case where the computation  
supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial  
condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs  
exist too, but they are much rarer. They appear in the UD much less  
frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate  
laws of physics of this universe.  It takes far more data to  
describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on  
which it is based.


That is right. I think it is the correct intuition, but unfortunately,  
we cannot use it per se, we have to derive it from the math to be able  
to exploit the whole theology of the numbers. Universal system like  
the braids group, or the unitary group, might solve this, but we  
cannot use them directly, we have to derived them from the comp mind- 
body constraints.






So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can  
interact with and affect the consciousness of other people.


Hopefully. The existence of 3 different sort of physical realities  
seems to give sense to a pretension of salvia (i), which is that a  
form of plural first person reality might still exists near and after  
clinical death. this is not obvious. A priori, with comp, we might  
surivive in solipsist state, but apparently, there are entities with  
which we can communicate. In fact our own consciousness here and now,  
seems to involve many internal dialog and interaction.
Note that no Boltzman brain can ever implement a UD, nor even  
arbitrary part of UD*, which involves very long and stable  
computations. Eventually the simple but global and complete  
arithmetical reality is a very highly structured reality.


Bruno




Jason


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..



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 common present moment? Yes, of course. Any  
disagreement?


If they are *very* close to each other. Superposed, but not in the  
quantum sense, but in the sense of being at the same place.





Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San  
Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In other  
words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what)  
at the exact same time the one in New is doing something? Yes, of  
course they do share the same present moment. Any disagreement?


That seems to introduce a notion of simultaneity incompatible with  
special relativity. They share the same present *in* some referential,  
but not in all.


Bruno




Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away  
galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same  
relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion  
and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so that  
clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their clocks.


Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as  
well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic  
circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be no  
relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also share the  
exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only  
do they share the exact same present moment but they also share the  
exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement?


OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards  
accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now  
must agree that there is at least a common universal present moment  
across the universe for all observers in the same relativistic frame.


Agreed?

Edgar

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

2013-12-28 Thread Alberto G. Corona

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 question why there are things
 different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is
 the most simple kind of existence)?

 We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here?

 That is another way to put the argument of those that say non existence
can not exist therefore something must exist, from which everything
derives, including us. But that is a non sequitur (it does not follow)

  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



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 verified mathematical theory with predictable  
results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it  
actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence  
conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse.


OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.  
Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains  
only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to  
pick the position observable as important for thought process and  
measurement.


Bruno




Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest  
long ago



You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when  
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is  
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by  
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds  
to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the  
wave function  never collapses.


If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that  
is de facto many-worlds.



but the self-evident experience

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule  
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use  
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.


of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special  
relativity.

...

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can  
interact with and affect the consciousness of other people.



From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe  
is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations  
that are each of us. In other words, there  are many computations  
that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same  
computation to many of the computations that are running Jason.


Yes. We would be programs instantiated within a (possibly but not  
necessarily) shared, larger program.


  This gives an overlap between our worlds and thus the appearance  
of a common world for some collection of observers.


Right.

The cool thing is that this implies that there are underlaps;  
computations that are not shared or bisimilar between all of us.


Yes, I agree.  In some branches of the MW, perhaps you were born but  
I was not, or I was, and you weren't.


COuld those be the ones that we identify as ourselves?



Personal identity can become a very difficult subject, since there  
may be paths through which my program evolves to become you, and  
vice versa.


Yes, indeed.

Bruno





Jason

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 respects!



If you believe this, you cannot believe in computationalism.  If your  
brain work  is Turing emulable, that emulation is provably in  
arithmetic, which emulates all (it is a theorem in arithmetic) all  
computations. It is long to prove, but not so much difficult if you  
add some axioms like the exponentiation axioms. It is a hell of a  
difficulty to eliminate that exponentiation axioms, but that has been  
done, even in some strong way (eliminating universal quantifiers  
altogether) by Matiyasevitch, and that is well known (by logicians).


That the UD itself exist is a consequence of Church thesis, and is  
obvious to many for wrong reason. If you know Cnator diagonalization,  
then at first sight, it looks we can diagonalized against the UD  
existence, but it happens that the UD and arithmetic is close for the  
diagonalization procedure, making the UD, or equivalently the sigma_1  
part of arithmetic, complete for the computational reality (of course  
not complete for truth: that never happens by incompleteness à-la  
Gödel).


Bruno





Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear Jason,

Interleaving below.


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Hi LizR,

   That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one  
might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a  
numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers  
that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the  
interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of  
concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do,  
AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many  
observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many  
computations, but such a description would itself be the content of  
some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel  
numbering scheme.

  Something doesn't seem right about this!

It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines  
- which doesn't make it wrong, of course.


I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said  
something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at  
least to my limited understanding.


I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say.  My perspective  
is that most of the computations that support you and I are not  
isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much  
larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a  
universe in which life adapts and evolves.


I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument  
because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of  
spontaneous BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of  
the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this  
relationship between complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My  
first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in  
the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to  
exist and evolve at least one cycle of its computation. (After  
all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said  
that they actually compute some program...)



 The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and  
therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious  
computations such as ours than the case where the computation  
supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial  
condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs  
exist too, but they are much rarer.


RIght, but how fast do they get rarer?

It's hard to say. We would have to develop some model for estimating  
the Kolmogorov complexity (and maybe also incorporate frequency) of  
different programs and their relation to a given mind.





They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program  
corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe.


 It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to  
describe the physical system on which it is based.



How do you estimate this?

The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the  
program that is identical to your mind.  Similarly, all of the known  
laws of physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper.  QM seems to  
suggest that all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and  
so there is no need to specify the initial conditions of the

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 a form of computation at some level, the output (or trace)  
of the UDA, which I seem to recall is designated UDA*, will  
eventually generate those thoughts, experiences etc. Though if run  
on a PC it would probably take a few googol years to do so (and  
require many hubble volumes of storage space too, I imagine).


However, arithmetical realism assumes that the trace of the UDA  
already exists timelessly.



Of the UD. UD is the program doing the universal dovetailing.

UDA is for the 8 step argument showing that if we are machine, physics  
is a brnach of machine's theology, itself a branch of arithmetic or  
computer science.


Bruno




 Similarly, all of the known laws of physics could fit on a couple  
sheets of paper.  QM seems to suggest that all possible solutions to  
certain equations exist, and so there is no need to specify the  
initial conditions of the universe (which would require much more  
information to describe than your brain).


This sounds like the Theory of Nothing again.?

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 probabilities, and for this you need the  
complete run of the UD, because your next moment is determioned by  
the FPI on all computations. Here the invariance of first person  
experience for the UD time delays is capital. But I see your point.


Bruno





See my previous post for an elaboration.









--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 with
collapse.
Without collapse, if you look at a cat in the superposition dead
+alive, you end up yourself being described by a superposition seeing
a cat dead + seeing a cat alive. It is equivalent 'computationally)
with a self-duplication.

Bruno

3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already
exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical
information space, as I've described before in a number of posts.

However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you
understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled
Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book
itself, or I can explain further

Edgar

On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
wrote:

All,

I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason
because he brings up a very important issue.

The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are
'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum
theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in
this space.

However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose
another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete
information entities in logical computational space, and that what
wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become
dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events
produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional
variables of interacting particles).

I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea.
It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we
live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different
interpretation.

I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to
deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-
electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron
being in more than one place at the same time?

I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you
answered the following questions. According to your interpretation:

1. Are faster-than-light influences involved?
2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive
or dead?
3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the
intermediate computations performed?

Jason

However this approach that space is something that emerges from
quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to
events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves
all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical
ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 from a french philosopher  
(I just forget right now his name) itself taken from a greek general,  
which cut the feet or head of all soldier having not the right size  
(!).  (Sorry for those vague memories, learn this in highschool)


Now, of course, comp saves Kronecker from anthropomorphism, as with  
comp we can say that:

God created the integers, all else is the invention of ... integers.

Of course it made comp number-centered, but this we knew at the start  
with comp, and ... with christianism, in which it is important to  
realize our finiteness.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 instruction of  
the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first  
instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second  
instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the  
second programme, and so on.


If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second  
instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of  
possible programs.


 This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it  
running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes  
that would crash, or various other contingencies...


This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its  
completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to  
that point some time on the CPU.



This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the  
first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows  
it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that  
writes other programmes.


There is no program with the UD encountering programs that  
themselves instantiate other programs.


I guess you mean there is no problem with the UD encountering  
programs ..., and you are right.





 Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely often.



...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong.

:)




Jason did it. Liz, Stephen, Are you OK with the UD and UD*. Both the  
list of all programs AND their execution are done little bit by little  
bit.


Thanks to Jason for a code. With the phi_i, you can code the UD by

For all i, j, k,
execute k steps of phi_i(j)



Bruno





PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate  
have made of that? :-)


:-)  Good question, I haven't the faintest idea.  I could have used  
while (i == i) but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over,  
it might fail.


Jason

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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
accessible. How?

The space of all programs that do not halt is not Turing accessible.
The space of all programs that do halt is not Turing accessible.

The space of all programs (that do halt of do not halt) *is* accessible.

All what happen is that we have no general systematic, computational,
means to distinguish the programs that halt from the programs that
does not halt (on their inputs), and that is why the universal
dovetailer must *dovetail* on the executions of all programs.

Bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.

Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i

Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it

for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through

i = i + 1;
}

Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated
to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical
truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any program
executes forever, and what all of its intermediate states are. If
these statements are true independently of you and me, then the
executions of these programs are embedded in arithmetical truth and
have a platonic existence. The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th,
and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are
mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the conscious
beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part
of the execution of the UD are there, in the math.

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 are the one who
proved this.

If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a
UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then
how is it a fact?

It does not need to be a fact. *you* recognize you are conscious, even
if no one can prove it by looking at your code and state, and that is
enough to proceed in the reasoning.

bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.

Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i

Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it

for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through

i = i + 1;
}

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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
listOfPrograms) is buggy.

It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is
accessible. How?

We never know a prior if a program will halts or not. However, once
a program has reached a halted stated it is immediately apparent.
If the function name was willThisProgramHalt(), then I agree it
would be a buggy program. :-)

The UD as I wrote it executes all programs, whether they will halt
or not, but it never wastes time trying to run another instruction
of a program that has halted. This is only an optimization, and I
added it only to reduce the ambiguity of running another
instruction of a program that has halted.

OK. The LISP UD is even more optimized, and the small UD I just gave
is not optimal at all. Of course, to optimize a UD is a bit like pure
coquetry :) (it should not change anything in the measure conflicts,
a priori).

Bruno

Jason

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.

Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i

Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it

for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through

i = i + 1;
}

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

--
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

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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,

this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.

It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.

Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I
don't see how it can arise in arithmetic.

It appears in all numbers written in any base. Most numbers are
already random (even incompressible).
I guess you know that. In the phi_i(j) in the UD, randomness can
appear in the many j used as input, as we usually dovetail on the
function of one variable. (but such input can easily be internalized
in 0-variable programs).

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, ... generates all random
finite incompressible strings, and even all the infinite one (for the
1p view, notably).

In that (trivial) sense, arithmetic contains a lot of 3p randomness,
even perhaps too much. Then 1p randomeness appears too, by the 1p
indeterminacy (and that one is in the eyes of the machine).

Chaitin's results can also explain why we cannot filter out that 3p
randomness from arithmetic.

Bruno

What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a
regular random number and not some random number prefixed on a
real halting program?

It don't see how it makes a difference.

Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?

I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?

Jason

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.

Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i

Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it

for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through

i = i + 1;
}

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 all language question like does that progream compute this
or that are non algorithmically solvable (and undecidable in most
theories).

Bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.

It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.

Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I
don't see how it can arise in arithmetic.

What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a
regular random number and not some random number prefixed on a
real halting program?

It don't see how it makes a difference.

Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?

I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?

Jason

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never
been able to grok it.

Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i

Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it

for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next
time through

i = i + 1;
}

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 and semantics is still
unclear to me. It is a sort of vague polymorphic lambda calculus. I
did love a long time ago, the actor model. It is somewhat
psychologically sad that the term object replaced the term actor.

bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi jason,

Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of
deterministic are you using?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
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! If there does not
exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a
faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact?

That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not.

It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic.

If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run
or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows,
like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.)

Right. :-)

The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a
mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal
digit of Pi is 4.

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 randomness (through the
inputs), even deterministically.

Just think about the fact that the UD does emulate infinite iteration
of the WM duplication.

Bruno

The definition of deterministic would be - gives the same output on
each run (given that the UD has no input).

On 28 December 2013 17:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi jason,

Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of
deterministic are you using?

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Hi Jason,

That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not.

It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic.

If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run
or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows,
like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.)

Right. :-)

The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a
mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal
digit of Pi is 4.

Jason

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 exist in arithmetic. Subtracting it would be cheating. the
silmple counting algorith generates all random finite strings (random
in the strong Chaitin sense).

Almost all numbers are random, when written in some base. And you can
define the notion of base *in* arithmetic, so they exist in all models
of arithmetic. We can't subtract them.

Bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:15, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could
contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle.

That source, if it is within the program, would necessarily be
deterministic. If it is external to the program, then it is more
properly treated as an input to the program rather than a part of
the program itself.

In practice, computers draw on sources of environmental noise such
as delays between keystrokes, timing of the reception of network
traffic, and delays in accessing data off of hard drives, etc. These
steps are necessary precisely because programs cannot produce
randomness on their own.

I knew that - honest! :-)

I was answering the question as posed. I believe that in practice
all real-world programmes are deterministic, and (more to the point)
the UD is.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 many TOEs) time is emergent.


Physical times and subjective time emerge. OK. But let us be honest,  
comp assumes already a sort of time, through the natural order: à, 1,  
2, 3, ...


Then you have all UD-time step of the computations emulated by the UD:

phi_444(6) first step
...
phi_444(6) second step
... ...  (meaning greater delay in  
the UD-time steps).

ph_444(6) third  step
... ... ...
ph_444(6) fourth  step
  ... ...
ph_444(6) fifth step
etc.



To take a parallel example that should be close to your heart,  
suppose you're an AI living in the matrix and it's simulating  
reality for you. You aren't aware of this but believe yourself to be  
say a human writer who is participating in an online discussion.  
Suppose it takes a million years to simulate one second of your  
experience. How would you know? You can only compare your experience  
of time with in-matrix clocks, which all run at the speed you'd  
expect.


It's the same for any theory which tries to compute reality.


But the physical time is not Turing emulable, and perhaps is not even  
existing, like in Dewitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.
if it exist, it depends on all computations instantaneously, by the  
delay invariance of the FPI.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise  
oracles is cheating!


Who said random noise was necessary? I said the UD, at least, is  
completely deterministic.



The UD is indeed totally deterministic. but it still generates all  
random strings, and all executions of all programs on all random  
streams. This has consequences on the FPI, but is not a consequences  
of the FPI. The UD generates deterministically 3P randomness. 1p  
randomness exists too in arithmetic, but cannot be said being  
generated by the UD. That one is an illusion in the mind of the  
observers.


Bruno




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 binary string refers  
to anything that is true or not, only what its particular value  
happens to be. No no no! We can not make statements without showing  
how their proof are accessible!



The proof is straight forward. Run the UD and see what the state is.

Run it, on what hardware? ??



Are you objecting that it does not have a definite value because you  
or I are not capable of computing it?


Did the 100th digit of Pi not exist until the first human computed it?

Pfft, that is a red herring and you know it! Why even mention  
humans? If numbers exist, then that existence has nothing at all to  
do with humans or aliens of black clouds. It is merely the necessary  
possibility that the numbers are not inconsistent. If they were  
inconsistent, then all that would exist is noise. And we are back to  
my question. What decodes the noise into meaningful strings?


The universal numbers, through the laws (in this case with arithmetic  
beeing the base) of addition and multiplication. Arithmetic dovetail  
on programs, and consciousness filter out the meaningfull one (as we  
assume comp).









Consider the i-th through j_th values of pi's expansion in binary.  
If it is a finite string, how do we know that it is a Turing machine  
program?



All integers can be mapped directly to Turing machine programs.   
Consider Java: it uses a byte-code where every byte is an  
instruction for the Java virtual machine.  Every string of bytes can  
therefore be considered as a sequence of instructions for the Java  
virtual machine to execute.


SO it is OK to include the java code that generates noise. There are  
your oracles! Pick one. Whoops, how is the selection made?


Like in the WM duplication. By self-reference.

bruno







Jason



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 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! If there does not  
exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a  
faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact?



The mathematical fact to which I am referring is only a basic and  
straight-forward statement like the binary representation of the  
state of UD after executing 100..00th steps is  
'101010010...0010. It is not a question of whether or not that  
binary string refers to anything that is true or not, only what its  
particular value happens to be.


Jason


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Hi Jason,

  Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How  
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never  
been able to grok it.



Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language.  I  
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:


List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
   # Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the  
integer i

   Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

   # Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
   listOfPrograms.add(P);

   # For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute  
one instruction of it

   for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
   {
 if (p.hasHalted() == false)
 {
executeOneInstruction(p);
 }
   }

   # Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next  
time through

   i = i + 1;
}


Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated  
to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical  
truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any program  
executes forever, and what all of its intermediate states are. If  
these statements are true independently of you and me, then the  
executions of these programs are embedded in arithmetical truth and  
have a platonic existence.  The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th,  
and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are  
mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the conscious  
beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on  
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part  
of the execution of the UD are there, in the math.


Jason



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 the time of 
creation to obey the law of conservation of particle properties. That is 
particle physics 101. Specifically in this case their spins must be created 
equal and opposite but this is only known to their frame, not to that of 
the observer until he links and aligns it with a measurement.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:51:50 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually 
 exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than 
 being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.


 If the appearance of space is emergent, then shouldn't the appearance of 
 time be as well?
  


 E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two 
 particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property 
 conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is 
 created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles 
 which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when 
 the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common 
 dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the 
 observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second 
 particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame.


 Yes, the original EPR paper is what motivated Einstein, Podolsky, and 
 Rosen to propose there were hidden variables (which is what you propose 
 above in saying the spin relation of the two particles is fixed when they 
 are created). However, under Bell's modification to the EPR case, he found 
 that supposing such hidden variables have a single definite state prior to 
 measurement is impossible and cannot work.  This becomes evident when you 
 measure something such as the polarization of photons at angles other than 
 0, 45, or 90 degrees, where the agreements are 100%, 50%, and 0%.  If 
 instead, you measure at angles like 30%, you find the agreement is 75%, 
 which is higher than is mathematically possible assuming the photons have 
 single, pre-determined properties prior to the measurement.
  


 The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their 
 creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame 
 was independent of that of the observer until a single common event 
 connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of 
 both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must 
 be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common 
 dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become 
 automatically aligned in a single dimensionality.


 The only way the particles can have their properties determined at the 
 time of creation, and remain compatible with Bell's theorem, is if the 
 properties of the particles are in a mult-valued (superposed) state.
  


 Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a 
 previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known 
 solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is 
 Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately 
 does not apply) in this model.


 This is exactly the case Bell's theorem applies to, the notion of single 
 definite values prior to measurement. This is not clear from reading only 
 about the EPR paradox, you need to read through Bell's paper (or the 
 website I provided that gave a walk through of it).
  



 Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that 
 frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable 
 via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the 
 measurement of whether it is alive or dead).


 We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional 
 frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other 
 (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, 
 there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected 
 networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then 
 dimensionally aligned by some shared event.

 Edgar



 On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Answers to your 3 questions. 

 1. No.


 If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your 
 interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/
 wiki/EPR_paradox )?  As a previously mentioned,

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 doesn't actually 
 exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than 
 being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.

  E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two 
 particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property 
 conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is 
 created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles 
 which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when 
 the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common 
 dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the 
 observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second 
 particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame.
  

 The problem is that when and become refer to a time dimension and, 
 when the measurements are spacelike, there is no canonical ordering to the 
 measurement events.

  
  The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their 
 creation. 
  

 That's a hidden variable which violation of Bell's inequality rules out 
 unless the relationship is spacelike (i.e. FTL).

  It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was 
 independent of that of the observer until a single common event connected 
 the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of both frames 
 became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must be 
 completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common dimensional 
 event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically 
 aligned in a single dimensionality.

  Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a 
 previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known 
 solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is 
 Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately 
 does not apply) in this model.

  
  Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But 
 that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes 
 observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame 
 (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead).

  We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional 
 frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other 
 (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, 
 there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected 
 networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then 
 dimensionally aligned by some shared event.
  

 So there's a global time coordinate, but no global space coordinates?

 Brent
  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

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 common events.

Separate spaces are dimensionally independent. When they merge via common 
dimensional events there can be no deterministic alignment thus randomness 
arises.

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important 
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There 
 simply is no true classical level randomness.


 Have you gotten to step 3 in the UDA yet?  It explains how true randomness 
 can emerge without assuming QM.
  
 Jason

 There is plenty of non-computability which is often mistaken for 
 randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up 
 from the quantum level. 

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. 
 However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these 
 computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum 
 level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical 
 level depending on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they 
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) 
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses 
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to 
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the 
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to 
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Metaphor, Electricity, Sun and Moon…

2013-12-28 Thread Craig Weinberg



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. 
 It is *the animation of circuitry.* Electricity is algebraic and logical 
 as it arcs from vector to vector directly, like a lightning bolt, hopping 
 across gaps in logical steps. It is a path finder and path maker.


 Victor Frankenstein was right!

 It lives!!


Haha, yes! Actually, although Frankenstein's monster was animated by 
lightning, I would align him with the magnetemorphic pole of body without 
mind: The unnatural, undead corporeal presence. The electrophoric monster 
presence would be something like HAL (unnatural incorproreal presence), or 
supernatural (ghost, alien, demon/devil).


 Lovely Moody Blues lyrics, by the way. (Reminds me of that poem by Shelley 
 That orbed maiden with white fire laden, whom mortals call the Moon 
 etc. I rather like Shelley, and of course his wife (see above)).


Cool. The MB's had some first rate successes. The theme of the Shelley's 
and Romanticism makes me want to see a huge 3-D map of the 17th-20th 
centuries.
 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?




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 it exists


No, the particles MUST have their properties determined at the time  
of creation to obey the law of conservation of particle properties.


Many worlds says that after the decay the electron is both spin up and  
spin down and the same for the positron.


However they are correlated such that the super position is:

(e up and p down) + (e down and p up)

When you measure one, you too become part of that superposed state.

(measured e up and e up and p down) + (measured e down and e down and  
p up)


According to many worlds, you end up entangled (correlated with) both  
of them.  According to collapse theories, only one of them (the other  
state mysteriously vanishes).


Your proposal that only one definite outcome is set at the time of the  
pair's creation, that is, the electron is either definitely,and only  
up or definitely and only down, prior to measurement, is unworkable,  
as it leads to statistics that are incompatible with observed and  
predicted quantum mechanics, as Bell showed.


You can't just deny Bell's result or say it doesn't apply to your  
theory. it was meant to cover exactly the case as you described it.


You should not feel bad that you missed it. Einstein missed it too.

Jason

That is particle physics 101. Specifically in this case their spins  
must be created equal and opposite but this is only known to their  
frame, not to that of the observer until he links and aligns it with  
a measurement.


Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:51:50 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Jason,

All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually  
exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather  
than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.


If the appearance of space is emergent, then shouldn't the  
appearance of time be as well?



E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two  
particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property  
conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when  
it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the  
two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the  
observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the  
observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement  
of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become  
aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in  
the observer's frame.


Yes, the original EPR paper is what motivated Einstein, Podolsky,  
and Rosen to propose there were hidden variables (which is what you  
propose above in saying the spin relation of the two particles is  
fixed when they are created). However, under Bell's modification to  
the EPR case, he found that supposing such hidden variables have a  
single definite state prior to measurement is impossible and cannot  
work.  This becomes evident when you measure something such as the  
polarization of photons at angles other than 0, 45, or 90 degrees,  
where the agreements are 100%, 50%, and 0%.  If instead, you measure  
at angles like 30%, you find the agreement is 75%, which is higher  
than is mathematically possible assuming the photons have single,  
pre-determined properties prior to the measurement.



The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since  
their creation. It had to since their creation determined it.  
However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a  
single common event connected the two frames at which time every  
dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is  
basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of  
each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which  
point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a  
single dimensionality.


The only way the particles can have their properties determined at  
the time of creation, and remain compatible with Bell's theorem, is  
if the properties of the particles are in a mult-valued (superposed)  
state.



Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your  
As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is  
only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL  
influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. is  
certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model.


This is exactly the case Bell's theorem applies to, the notion of  
single definite values prior to measurement. This is not clear from  
reading only about the EPR paradox, you need to read through

Re: All randomness is quantum...




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 mini-spacetimes that emerge from quantum events have be aligned  
due to linking at common events.




I have not, but my point is there is already a form of randomness we  
know of that does not need quarum mechanics, indeed quantum randomness  
itself may only be a special case of this new type of randomness  
(discovered by Bruno).


Jason

Separate spaces are dimensionally independent. When they merge via  
common dimensional events there can be no deterministic alignment  
thus randomness arises.


Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:
Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the  
important topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate  
topic.


As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There  
simply is no true classical level randomness.


Have you gotten to step 3 in the UDA yet?  It explains how true  
randomness can emerge without assuming QM.


Jason

There is plenty of non-computability which is often mistaken for  
randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates  
up from the quantum level.


At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact.  
However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these  
computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This  
quantum level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to  
the Classical level depending on the information structures involved.


To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers,  
they don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources  
of (quantum) randomness from the environment, but the code the  
computer itself uses contains no randomness as the whole point of  
digital devices is to completely submerge any source of randomness  
because that would pollute the code and/or data.


Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to  
randomness and fails


Edgar



--
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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality




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 a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus  
mathematical truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any  
program executes forever, and what all of its intermediate states  
are. 


this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.

It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.

Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I  
don't see how it can arise in arithmetic.


?

It appears in all numbers written in any base. Most numbers are  
already random (even incompressible).

I guess you know that.


I agree most numbers are incompressible, but I was using random in a  
different sense than the unpredictability of the next digits of the  
number given previous ones.


In the phi_i(j) in the UD, randomness can appear in the many j used  
as input, as we usually dovetail on the function of one variable.  
(but such input can easily be internalized in 0-variable programs).


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.


Right, all the random numbers are there, the question is how to throw  
the dart so that it lands on one.


but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1,  
2,  6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite  
incompressible strings, and even all the infinite one (for the 1p  
view, notably).


I think we are using the term in a slightly different sense.   
Certainly any number in the range 1 - N can be considered as a random  
number in that range (as it is a candidate to be output by some RNG),  
but the problem is selecting it in a random (in the sense of not- 
predictable) way.


There was a joke cartoon of some computer code:

int getRandomNumber()
{
  return 4; // this number was determined by a random die roll
}

While a number can be interpreted as random once, it might not be the  
second time.


While selecting and using all possibilities is arguably a way to  
achieve randomness (unpredictibilty), (from some points of view) it is  
often not practical nor useful.  Consider encrypting a message with  
all possible keys and sending the recipient all possible messages.


Not only might you need to send 2^256 possible ciphertexts but any  
eavesdropper could use the first possible key to decrypt it. This  
achieves randomness from the POV of the cipher, but not for the user  
or the attackers.


In quantum cryptography this is essentially what is done, but it  
requires that the sender and reciever (and attackers) be duplicated  
for each possible key. So they need to be embedded in that larger  
program that provides all possible inputs for it to seem random. This  
is just FPI though, is it not?


Jason



In that (trivial) sense, arithmetic contains a lot of 3p randomness,  
even perhaps too much. Then 1p randomeness appears too, by the 1p  
indeterminacy (and that one is in the eyes of the machine).


Chaitin's results can also explain why we cannot filter out that 3p  
randomness from arithmetic.


Bruno




What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a  
regular random number and not some random number prefixed on a  
real halting program?


It don't see how it makes a difference.


Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?

I don't understand this question..  Could you clarify?

Jason




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch  
jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Hi Jason,

  Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How  
is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never  
been able to grok it.



Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language.  I  
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:


List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
   # Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the  
integer i

   Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

   # Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
   listOfPrograms.add(P);

   # For each program we have generated that has not halted,  
execute one instruction of it

   for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
   {
 if (p.hasHalted() == false)
 {
executeOneInstruction(p);
 }
   }

   # Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next  
time through

   i = i + 1;
}


Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be  
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus  
mathematical truth captures the facts concerning whether or not any  
program executes forever, and what all

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 it will not
be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high
level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and
well behaved.


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 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 relativistic) entails that if I
 decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice
 on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being
 superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be
 considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person
 indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not
 duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be
 seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic.
 With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local
 physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But
 there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no world at
 all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical
 reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole
 arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local
 physical cosmos.

 Bruno





 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:

 Jason,

 Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
 don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
 you are saying.

 As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
 experience


 Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
 the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
 self-evident.


 whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of
 quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


 I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume
 past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
 It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
 collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
 are aware of from our particular vantage point.

 To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
 quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
 that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
 vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
 in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
 of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says
 that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


 or in quantum theory = the actual equations.


 If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
 (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
 only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
 restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
 have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.


 Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long
 ago



 You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
 collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still
 treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation).
 Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the
 appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function  never
 collapses.

 If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de
 facto many-worlds.



 but the self-evident experience


 As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out
 that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your
 experience to rule out that all points in time exist.


 of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.


 The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special
 relativity.



 Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you
 must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster
 than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of
 light)

 I'm not familiar with

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread spudboy100

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: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 1:26 am
Subject: Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Jason,

Answers to your 3 questions. 

1. No.

If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your 
interpretation address the EPR paradox ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )?  As a previously mentioned, 
according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox 
that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of 
many-worlds.

Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. 

Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional interpretation?

No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes one 
assumption. 

Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if 
not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival 
to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications.

Interesting, do you have any sources you can point me to on this?

I'd start with Time's arrow and Archimedes' point by Huw Price.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something,
 doing this processing, this work?



 In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete physical
 reality, in some local sense.



 Could this Turing universal/sigma_1-complete in a local sense be the
 exact criteria required to define the observations 3-experiences of
 individuals or is it the 1-experiences of individuals (observers) in
 keeping with the definition of an observer as the intersection of
 infinitely many computations?


 I think the UDA answers this question. You need Turing universality, but
 also the FPI, which in some sense comes from mechanism, but not necessarily
 universality, which has, here, only an indirect relevance in the
 definition of what is a computation in arithmetic.


I suspect that the FPI results from the underlap or failure to reach
exact overlap between observers. As if a small part of the computations
that are observers is not universal. This would effectively induce FPI as
any one observer would be forever unable to exactly match its experience of
being in the world with that of another.











 We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal
 machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality).
 Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we
 are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such
 primitiveness cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a
 dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness.


 It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem
 strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds.


 UDA formulates the problem, and show how big the mind-body problem is,
 even before tackling the other minds problem. But something is said. In
 fact it is easy to derive from the UDA the following assertions:

 comp + explicit non-solipsism entails sharable many words or a core linear
 physical reality.


I do not comprehend this. It is easy for us to see that solipsism is
false, but how can a computation see anything? I do not understand how it
is that you can claim that computations will not be solipsistic by default.




 But comp in fact has to justify the non-solipsism, and this is begun
 through the
 
 nuance Bp  p versus Bp  Dt. Normally the linearity should allow the
 first person plural in the  Dt nuance case.


Exactly! I am looking forward to the explanation of this 

nuance Bp  p versus Bp  Dt. :-)




 Keep in mind that UDA does not solve the problem, but formulate it. AUDA
 go more deep in a solution, and the shape of that solution (like UDA
 actually) provides already information contradicting the Aristotelian
 theology (used by atheists and the main part of institutionalized abramanic
 religion).


Sure. My main worry is that your wonderful result obtains at too high a
price: the inability to even model interactions and time.




 Bruno






 Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions
 above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic).

 The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is
 derived from basically just

 Kxy = x
 Sxyz = xz(yz)

 or just

 x + 0 = x
 x + s(y) = s(x + y)

  x *0 = 0
  x*s(y) = x*y + x




 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 too.

Bruno





--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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
 listOfPrograms) is buggy.

 It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible.
 How?


 The space of all programs that do not halt is not Turing accessible.
 The space of all programs that do halt is not Turing accessible.

 The space of all programs (that do halt of do not halt) *is* accessible.


Could you elaborate on this claim. I wish to be sure that I understand
it. Is it really a space? Would it have metrics and topological
properties?




 All what happen is that we have no general systematic, computational,
 means to distinguish the programs that halt from the programs that does not
 halt (on their inputs), and that is why the universal dovetailer must
 *dovetail* on the executions of all programs.


Not having a general systematic, computational, means to distinguish..
has not stopped Nature. She solves the problem by the evolution of physical
worlds. I propose that physical worlds ARE a form of non-universal
computation.

I still think that the UD lives only in Platonia and is timeless and
static. Only its projections (to use Plato's cave metaphor) are run as
physical worlds if they can survive the challenge of mutual consistency.




 Bruno





 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
 computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
 grok it.


 Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language.  I will
 write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

 List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
 int i = 0;
 while (true)
 {
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
 integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
 instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
  if (p.hasHalted() == false)
  {
 executeOneInstruction(p);
  }
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
 through
i = i + 1;
 }


 Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
 statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
 captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
 and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
 independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
 embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence.  The first,
 second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
 execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
 conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
 consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
 execution of the UD are there, in the math.

 Jason



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 translated to
 a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
 captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
 and what all of its intermediate states are.
 

 this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.


 It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.

 Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I don't see
 how it can arise in arithmetic.


 ?

 It appears in all numbers written in any base. Most numbers are already
 random (even incompressible).
 I guess you know that. In the phi_i(j) in the UD, randomness can appear in
 the many j used as input, as we usually dovetail on the function of one
 variable. (but such input can easily be internalized in 0-variable
 programs).


OK, I must agree, but can you see how this removes our ability to use the
natural ordering of the integers as an explanation of the appearance of
time? Since there are multiple and equivalent (as to their properties)
sequences of integers that have very different orders relative to each
other, if we use these ordering as our time we would have a different
dimension of time for every one!




 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, ... generates all random finite
 incompressible strings, and even all the infinite one (for the 1p view,
 notably).

 In that (trivial) sense, arithmetic contains a lot of 3p randomness, even
 perhaps too much. Then 1p randomeness appears too, by the 1p indeterminacy
 (and that one is in the eyes of the machine).

 Chaitin's results can also explain why we cannot filter out that 3p
 randomness from arithmetic.



Have you had any more thoughts on the book keeping problem we have
discussed in the past?




 Bruno




 What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a regular
 random number and not some random number prefixed on a real halting
 program?


 It don't see how it makes a difference.



 Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?


 I don't understand this question..  Could you clarify?

 Jason





 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is
 it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
 grok it.


 Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language.  I will
 write a simple one in pseudo-code below:

 List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
 int i = 0;
 while (true)
 {
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
 integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);

# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);

# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
 instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
  if (p.hasHalted() == false)
  {
 executeOneInstruction(p);
  }
}

# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
 through
i = i + 1;
 }


 Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
 a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
 captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
 and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
 independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
 embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence.  The first,
 second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
 execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
 conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
 consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
 execution of the UD are there, in the math.

 Jason



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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).


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 the Actor model, but the idea is the same, basically. It
 is efficacious, but the math and semantics is still unclear to me. It is a
 sort of vague polymorphic lambda calculus. I did love a long time ago, the
 actor model. It is somewhat psychologically sad that the term object
 replaced the term actor.


Yes, Carl Hewitt claims that the Actor model has unbounded indeterminacy
as it does not assume an upper bound on the length of a path of a message
from one actor to another. We see this as a security feature, not a
problem. Our goal is inherently secure computation. We are using Marius
Buliga's graphic lambda calculus that very elegantly allows for the
construction of topological graphs that are both models of computation and
computer programs via a natural graph rewrite scheme.





 bruno



 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi jason,

   Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of
 deterministic are you using?


 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com 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! If there does not exist a program
 that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful
 representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact?

 That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not.


 It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic.


 If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or
 evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the
 googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.)


 Right. :-)

 The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a
 mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal digit of
 Pi is 4.

 Jason


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 machines
 require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise oracles is cheating!


 But it exist in arithmetic. Subtracting it would be cheating. the silmple
 counting algorith generates all random finite strings (random in the strong
 Chaitin sense).

 Almost all numbers are random, when written in some base. And you can
 define the notion of base *in* arithmetic, so they exist in all models of
 arithmetic. We can't subtract them.


With respect: No! We cannot wait forever (literally) to obtain consistency
of our data bases in the face of the inability to know in advance the
arrival time of messages in the network.

  The fact that arithmetic contains all finite (even the random ones)
strings is an ontological claim. I have no problem with the claim. My
problem is that we cannot reason as if time does not exist when we are
trying to construct real computers.

  We have to use different ideas, for example: competition for resources!
Platonic computers do not compete for resources nor change. They are static
and fixed eternally...




 Bruno






 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 December 2013 17:15, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could contain a
 source of genuine randomness, in principle.


 That source, if it is within the program, would necessarily be
 deterministic.  If it is external to the program, then it is more properly
 treated as an input to the program rather than a part of the program itself.

 In practice, computers draw on sources of environmental noise such as
 delays between keystrokes, timing of the reception of network traffic, and
 delays in accessing data off of hard drives, etc. These steps are necessary
 precisely because programs cannot produce randomness on their own.

 I knew that - honest! :-)

 I was answering the question as posed. I believe that in practice all
 real-world programmes are deterministic, and (more to the point) the UD is.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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, the physical TOE, describing what he  
observed.


But comp say that if we share realities, like Everett QM seems to  
suggest, then we share a rather low comp substitution level, and that  
below it we should see the trace of the interference of the infinitely  
many computations in arithmetic.


What we need to do is to compare the quantum observed multiverse with  
the comp multi-dream which is inside the head of all universal  
numbers. (That is begun in AUDA).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 like that, but this is of course still an open  
problem (both in comp and physics, I would say).


Such partial ordering gives models of the S4Grz logic (Bp  p).  It is  
more the subjective time than the physical time, which is just not on  
a comp horizon soon.


Bruno






Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 which is what reality actually does which is my point.

 In real time ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is emergent.


 Physical times and subjective time emerge. OK. But let us be honest, comp
 assumes already a sort of time, through the natural order: à, 1, 2, 3, ...

 Then you have all UD-time step of the computations emulated by the UD:

 phi_444(6) first step
 ...
 phi_444(6) second step
 ... ...  (meaning greater delay in the
 UD-time steps).
 ph_444(6) third  step
 ... ... ...
 ph_444(6) fourth  step
   ... ...
 ph_444(6) fifth step
 etc.


This would explain the sequencing of events aspect of time, but it does
nothing to address the concurrency problem. We need a theory of time that
has an explanation of both sequencing and transition. I wish you could
study GR, say from Penrose's math book, and Prof. Hitoshi Kitada's Local
Time interpretation of QM.
  It gives a nice set of concepts that help solve the problem of time:
there is no such thing as a global time; there is only local time. Local
for each individual observer. Synchronizations of these local times
generates the appearance of global time for a collection that is co-moving
or (equivalently) have similar inertial frames.





 To take a parallel example that should be close to your heart, suppose
 you're an AI living in the matrix and it's simulating reality for you. You
 aren't aware of this but believe yourself to be say a human writer who is
 participating in an online discussion. Suppose it takes a million years to
 simulate one second of your experience. How would you know? You can only
 compare your experience of time with in-matrix clocks, which all run at the
 speed you'd expect.

 It's the same for any theory which tries to compute reality.


 But the physical time is not Turing emulable, and perhaps is not even
 existing, like in Dewitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.


Indeed! The common idea of physical time is an illusion! See: 
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027

What is and What should be Time?
Hitoshi Kitada http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Kitada_H/0/1/0/all/0/1,
Lancelot
R. Fletcher http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Fletcher_L/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 20 Aug 1994 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9408027v1), last
revised 16 Mar 1996 (this version, v4))

The notions of time in the theories of Newton and Einstein are reviewed so
that certain of their assumptions are clarified. These assumptions will be
seen as the causes of the incompatibility between the two different ways of
understanding time, and seen to be philosophical hypotheses, rather than
purely scientific ones. The conflict between quantum mechanics and
(general) relativity is shown to be a consequence of retaining the
Newtonian conception of time in the context of quantum mechanics. As a
remedy for this conflict, an alternative definition of time -- earlier
presented in Kitada 1994a and 1994b -- is reviewed with less mathematics
and more emphasis on its philosophical aspects. Based on this revised
understanding of time it is shown that quantum mechanics and general
relativity are reconciled while preserving the current mathematical
formulations of both theories.




 if it exist, it depends on all computations instantaneously, by the
 delay invariance of the FPI.

 Bruno



 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

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 answer is 1. So there is only one unique
1-view from the 1-view on planet Earth right now; that is to say if a one
to one correspondence was attempted between the infinite set of UNIQUE
integers and the set of all the UNIQUE 1-views from the 1-view on planet
Earth right now only ONE such pairing can be made. So the set of all UNIQUE
one views of the one view has only 1 element in it. Well who is this one,
who is he, what's his name? I'd love to meet him (or her), can you
introduce me?

  infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.


Yet another straight answer, this time the answer is infinity;
unfortunately it's a very different answer to the exact same question. So
is the answer 1 or infinity or your previous answer of 7 billion?

 OK?


No, that is very far from OK.

 So what about step 7?


I don't see why anybody should read step 7 of your proof when it has
already been demonstrated that you throw around terms like the 1-view from
the 1-view that you can't put a number to. If you can't put a number to it
you have no clear understanding of it.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality



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 realism as an abstract, immaterial computation.


Assuming comp, there is not much choice in the matter. That is the  
point.


Above the substitution level: interaction between universal machines,  
including one apparently sustained from below the substitution level  
by the statistical interference between infinities of universal  
machines getting your actual states.


I don't know how to avoid those infinities without reifying some God- 
of-the-gap or Matter-of-the-gap notion to singularize a computation  
for consciousness, but if that is needed for consciousness, then comp  
is false. True, you still survive with a digital brain, but no more  
through comp, it is true from comp + some explicit magic to make  
disappear the other realities. You get an irrefutable form of cosmic  
solipsism.


Bruno






--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 to dispense
 with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical
 realism as an abstract, immaterial computation.


 Assuming comp, there is not much choice in the matter. That is the point.


I will agree.




 Above the substitution level: interaction between universal machines,
 including one apparently sustained from below the substitution level by the
 statistical interference between infinities of universal machines getting
 your actual states.


But the actual states are not just some random string from my point of
view! The very fact that we can (somewhat) communicate is an important
fact. There is a selection mechanism: interaction.




 I don't know how to avoid those infinities without reifying some
 God-of-the-gap or Matter-of-the-gap notion to singularize a computation for
 consciousness, but if that is needed for consciousness, then comp is false.


Umm, that is a false choice! The FPI is good enough to do the job
without resorting to a 'god/matter in the gap solution. The
singularization of consciousness is easy, as you have shown. It is the
concurrent interaction problem that is not easy. I cannot exactly predict
your actions and thus can only bet on your future states, but I can
constrain your possible choices of action with my physical behaviors even
if the physical world is an illusion. The fact that it is a common and
persistent illusion makes it a ground of commonality from which we can
distinguish ourselves 3-p wise from each other.




 True, you still survive with a digital brain, but no more through comp, it
 is true from comp + some explicit magic to make disappear the other
 realities. You get an irrefutable form of cosmic solipsism.


There is no magic here, there is the SAT problem. Boolean algebras do not
automatically pop out with global consistency over their
arguments/propositions. One has to actually physically run a physical
world to know what it will do. Claiming that it exists in Platonia is not
a solution.




 Bruno





 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 the common 
sense view of the single background spacetime that QM mistakenly assumes.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:20:08 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 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 it 
 exists


 No, the particles MUST have their properties determined at the time of 
 creation to obey the law of conservation of particle properties. 


 Many worlds says that after the decay the electron is both spin up and 
 spin down and the same for the positron.

 However they are correlated such that the super position is:

 (e up and p down) + (e down and p up)

 When you measure one, you too become part of that superposed state. 

 (measured e up and e up and p down) + (measured e down and e down and p 
 up) 

 According to many worlds, you end up entangled (correlated with) both of 
 them.  According to collapse theories, only one of them (the other state 
 mysteriously vanishes).

 Your proposal that only one definite outcome is set at the time of the 
 pair's creation, that is, the electron is either definitely,and only up or 
 definitely and only down, prior to measurement, is unworkable, as it leads 
 to statistics that are incompatible with observed and predicted quantum 
 mechanics, as Bell showed.

 You can't just deny Bell's result or say it doesn't apply to your theory. 
 it was meant to cover exactly the case as you described it.

 You should not feel bad that you missed it. Einstein missed it too.

 Jason

 That is particle physics 101. Specifically in this case their spins must 
 be created equal and opposite but this is only known to their frame, not to 
 that of the observer until he links and aligns it with a measurement.

 Edgar



 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:51:50 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually 
 exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than 
 being a fixed background to them these questions disappear.


 If the appearance of space is emergent, then shouldn't the appearance of 
 time be as well?
  


 E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two 
 particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property 
 conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is 
 created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles 
 which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when 
 the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common 
 dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the 
 observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second 
 particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame.


 Yes, the original EPR paper is what motivated Einstein, Podolsky, and 
 Rosen to propose there were hidden variables (which is what you propose 
 above in saying the spin relation of the two particles is fixed when they 
 are created). However, under Bell's modification to the EPR case, he found 
 that supposing such hidden variables have a single definite state prior to 
 measurement is impossible and cannot work.  This becomes evident when you 
 measure something such as the polarization of photons at angles other than 
 0, 45, or 90 degrees, where the agreements are 100%, 50%, and 0%.  If 
 instead, you measure at angles like 30%, you find the agreement is 75%, 
 which is higher than is mathematically possible assuming the photons have 
 single, pre-determined properties prior to the measurement.
  


 The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their 
 creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame 
 was independent of that of the observer until a single common event 
 connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of 
 both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must 
 be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common 
 dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become 
 automatically aligned in a single dimensionality.


 The only way the particles can have their properties determined at the 
 time of creation, and remain compatible with Bell's theorem, is if the 
 properties of the particles are in a mult-valued (superposed) state.
  


 Thus there is NO need for faster than light

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 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 verified mathematical theory with predictable 
 results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
 does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
 very notion of collapse.


 OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
 Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
 why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
 position observable as important for thought process and measurement.

 Bruno



 Edgar



 On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
 don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
 you are saying.

 As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
 experience 


 Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
 exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
  

 whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
 equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 


 I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume 
 past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
 It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
 collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
 are aware of from our particular vantage point.

 To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
 quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
 that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
 vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
 in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
 of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
 that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
  

 or in quantum theory = the actual equations.


 If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations 
 (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is 
 only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to 
 restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I 
 have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
  

 Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function 

 ...

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

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 it's that whatever the true nature of reality is it's outlandish! If
Many Worlds isn't true then something even weirder is.

 and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed.


Is Many Worlds more laughable than the present changing the past, or you
and me and the entire universe being a simulation in a gargantuan
supercomputer somewhere, or the mainstream Copenhagen idea that things only
become real when you look at it? Copenhagen is nuts because things aren't
real enough, Many Worlds is nuts because things are too real and everything
that could exist does exist. As I say if Many Worlds isn't true then
something even weirder is.

 every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe
 spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event
 in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately
 exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into
 uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since
 over 14.7 billion years!


That would be ridiculous and nobody would dream of suggesting such a looney
idea if they weren't desperate. They were desperate.


  Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's
 larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written
 down.


I know, it's nuts, but is it true?

 There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in
 the entire universe to even express a number this large!


I know, it's nuts, but is it true?

 Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things


Common sense is of absolutely no help in questions of this sort, Evolution
didn't make our monkey brains to deal with them.

 to see how stupid they are?


I would use the word crazy not stupid and Many Worlds is certainly crazy,
but is it crazy enough to be true?

 And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied
 exponentially


Face the facts, something important about the way we think the world works
has got to go, and to my mind dumping the conservations laws is less
drastic than dumping the idea the the moon exists even when I'm not looking
at it. And besides conservation laws are not based on some logical
imperative but were just empirically derived, and they could still hold
within each branch of the multiverse.

 it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.


I have no idea what you mean by that.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

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 longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you
get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function
contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the
exact same probability when you square it.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  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 longitude and latitude. If you want to talk 
 about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you 
 get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function 
 contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the 
 exact same probability when you square it.

   John K Clark
  
  




-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,

2013-12-28 Thread freqflyer07281972

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 'consciousness' (yet another word that 
is frequently thrown around as a symbol with no proper referent) that is 
responsible for uniqueness and unrepeatability as it is the infinitesimally 
small chance that all of the quantum correlations that exist in a current 
observer moment could ever be repeated... and if they could, that would 
nevertheless include no information about whether the entire state had been 
repeated or not. 

I dunno, seems like a lot of hand waving to me... I do feel rather 
convinced of precisely the sentiment that the quotation you led off with 
expresses, namely that we are machines made of machines made of machines 
made of... information eventually. And the information is processed by some 
set of very fundamental rules. I do get your rejoinder, however which I 
think is something like: If everything is information fundamentally 
operating according to computational principles, why on earth would there 
be something that it is like to be that computation? Whence the inner 
life and rich inner experiences we have access to in introspection? Whence 
the qualia? And honestly, I don't have an answer for that. I take it your 
answer (sorry to rehash some of this, but I find it helpful to deepen my 
understanding) is that everything is endowed with primitive sense making 
faculties, kind of like a panpsychism. I'm wondering, why can't this axiom 
simply be added on to the idea that we are machines made of information? 
i.e. we are machines made of information and information itself has an 
inner life?  

It's beginning to sound a lot like woo, so I'd better stop there. 

Best regards,

Dan



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:40:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:

 humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,


 I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect on 
 their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine 
 that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact.

 I agree that there is an intrinsic limit to Strong AI, but I think that 
 the limit is at the starting gate. Since consciousness is the embodiment of 
 uniqueness and unrepeatability, there is no almost conscious. It doesn't 
 matter how much the artist in the painting looks like he is really painting 
 himself in the mirror, or how realistic Escher makes the staircase look, 
 those realities are forever sculpted in theory, not in the multisense 
 realism.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality


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 that bothers me.  It seems that you require a completed, realized 
uncountable inifinity.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?




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.


Edgar



If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in  
it?  What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed?


Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your  
own theories?


Jason




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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 verified mathematical theory with predictable  
results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it  
actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence  
conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse.


OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.  
Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It  
explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and  
seems to pick the position observable as important for thought  
process and measurement.


Bruno



Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function
...
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Bard rows sorcerer back to disclose cryptic riddle (9)

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality


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 of man.



man is a measure of all things is a quote from a french philosopher (I just forget 
right now his name) itself taken from a greek general, which cut the feet or head of all 
soldier having not the right size (!).  (Sorry for those vague memories, learn this in 
highschool)


Man is the measure of all things. is usually attributed to Protagoras (a 
student of Plato).
Procrustes, who stretched or chopped guests to fit his iron bed, was a metal smith, not a 
general.




Now, of course, comp saves Kronecker from anthropomorphism, as with comp we can 
say that:
God created the integers, all else is the invention of ... integers.


Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles Übrige ist Menschenwerk
--- Kronecker

Brent



Of course it made comp number-centered, but this we knew at the start with comp, and ... 
with christianism, in which it is important to realize our finiteness.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality


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, ... generates all 
random finite incompressible strings,


How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is 
just 10.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality


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 what reality actually does which is my point.

In real time ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is emergent.


Physical times and subjective time emerge. OK. But let us be honest, comp assumes 
already a sort of time, through the natural order: à, 1, 2, 3, ...


Then you have all UD-time step of the computations emulated by the UD:

phi_444(6) first step
...
phi_444(6) second step
... ...  (meaning greater delay in the 
UD-time steps).
ph_444(6) third  step
... ... ...
ph_444(6) fourth  step
  ... ...
ph_444(6) fifth step
etc.



To take a parallel example that should be close to your heart, suppose you're an AI 
living in the matrix and it's simulating reality for you. You aren't aware of this but 
believe yourself to be say a human writer who is participating in an online discussion. 
Suppose it takes a million years to simulate one second of your experience. How would 
you know? You can only compare your experience of time with in-matrix clocks, which all 
run at the speed you'd expect.


It's the same for any theory which tries to compute reality.


But the physical time is not Turing emulable, and perhaps is not even existing, like in 
Dewitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.
if it exist, it depends on all computations instantaneously, by the delay invariance 
of the FPI.


Which seems like a flaw in trying to recover physics from comp - but maybe not, physics 
has it's own problems with time.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?


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 simulation of some events occuring as a Poisson process I can use a random 
number generator to produce the event times, but they are not produced in the order they 
occur in simulated time.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes

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 unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist' seems
overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short
with his remark that first: we need an identification for whatever we
call: god.
Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL stuff we
may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them.
Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism).
My idrentification for what many people call god is known to this list:
infinite complexity - not better than anyone else's: it is MY belief.

Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN stuff,
humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer to some
universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to our human
ways
of thinking.

Respectfully
John Mikes



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 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 theory is
 elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science
 (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by
 incompleteness).

 True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on
 the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic,
 not experience. So we have, roughly put:

 arithmetic  number's dreams = physics

 OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences
 are based on arithmetic/computer-science.

 Bruno



 Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
 Richard


 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  He did answer and did it correctly,


  I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

 I quote myself:

  That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
 question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  the 3p
 view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
 fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
 person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
 right now?


 1  (I already answered this, note)

 No you did not.

   from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

 That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

 How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
 John Clark's answer: 7 billion.

 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. Not just right now.
 Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.




  Can you explain why you ask?


 Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and
 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the
 first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and
 it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
 this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
 first person experiences views from their first person points of view
 existed on planet Earth right now.
 It is a simple question, what is the number?


 In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such
 human 1-view.
 In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.

 OK?

 This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated
 iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and
 after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views. But assuming comp and the
 default hypotheses, each of the
 copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W
 or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the
 vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or
 incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time).

 You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you
 seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.

 So what about step 7?
 How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences
 and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it
 executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer?

 Bruno


  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 in the main points of my 
theories though still working on some of the details, and of course their 
validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both 
internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of 
their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen 
any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main 
points of my theories I do however agree they need to be developed more 
and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though 
I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them. 

All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've 
really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your 
misunderstandings of my theories.

Best,
Edgar





On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 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.

 Edgar


 If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in it? 
  What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed?

 Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own 
 theories?

 Jason



 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 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 verified mathematical theory with predictable 
 results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
 does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
 very notion of collapse.


 OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
 Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
 why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
 position observable as important for thought process and measurement.

 Bruno



 Edgar



 On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
 don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
 you are saying.

 As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
 experience 


 Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
 exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
  

 whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
 equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 


 I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume 
 past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
 It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
 collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
 are aware of from our particular vantage point.

 To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
 quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
 that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
 vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
 in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
 of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
 that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
  
 blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde

 ...

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 processor cycles of comp.


 No, the computational steps have nothing to do with the computed time.  
 Just as when I run a Monte Carlo simulation of some events occuring as a 
 Poisson process I can use a random number generator to produce the event 
 times, but they are not produced in the order they occur in simulated time.

 Brent
  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?




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.


Cramer's transactional interpretation is non-local.

Jason



-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 1:26 am
Subject: Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net  
wrote:

Jason,

Answers to your 3 questions.

1. No.

If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does  
your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox 
 )?  As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there  
is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL  
influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds.


Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox.

Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional  
interpretation?


No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes  
one assumption.


Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid  
result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology  
is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may  
introduce modifications.


Interesting, do you have any sources you can point me to on this?

I'd start with Time's arrow and Archimedes' point by Huw Price.

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

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 same than non existence because
 something exist:  nothing. therefore the question why there are things
 different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is
 the most simple kind of existence)?

 We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here?

 That is another way to put the argument of those that say non existence
 can not exist therefore something must exist, from which everything
 derives, including us. But that is a non sequitur (it does not follow)


My point, too, I just couldn't think how to put it, so I temporised.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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
 fundamentally required for consciousness, or at least, to be an atom of
 consciousness.


 As the base of the UD, any universal numbers will do. That is why I can
 chose arithmetic or combinators etc.
 For raw consciousness, I am prety sure that universality is already too
 much, now just if then else might be not enough, I don't know, and I
 don't thinks it is important. I will not found a society to protect the
 private life of thermostat. I think.


Fair dos for thermostats! Like us, they have their ups and downs...

(Or is that thermometers?)

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 assumes a background space-time in which the universal
wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single
world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction
with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why
this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which
*supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.



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.

 Edgar



 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 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 verified mathematical theory with predictable
 results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually
 does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the
 very notion of collapse.


 OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.
 Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only
 why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the
 position observable as important for thought process and measurement.

 Bruno



 Edgar



 On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
 don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
 you are saying.

 As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
 experience


 Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
 the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
 self-evident.


 whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
 equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


 I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume
 past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
 It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
 collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
 are aware of from our particular vantage point.

 To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
 quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
 that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
 vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
 in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
 of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says
 that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


 or in quantum theory = the actual equations.


 If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
 (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
 only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
 restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
 have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.


 Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function

 ...

  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes

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:
non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain
and that would be the end of randomity.
I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the take any
number - however many of these are joking.
I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
circumstances of the topic.

John Mikes


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
 simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of
 non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true
 randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However
 the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is
 random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness
 can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending
 on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

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 first person indeterminacy
   b. Unpredictable in practice, such as chaotic, or pseudo-random
processes (the weather, or the output of modern ciphers).
3. A variable whose value has a some probabilistic distribution (especially
when the distribution is uniform)

Jason



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 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:
 non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
 is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain
 and that would be the end of randomity.
 I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the take any
 number - however many of these are joking.
 I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
 circumstances of the topic.

 John Mikes


 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
 simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of
 non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true
 randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact.
 However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these
 computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum
 level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical
 level depending on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Liz R

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 humans, or we 
would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some 
lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly 
improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that 
are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that 
the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.

you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every 
 quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an 
 entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every 
 one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially 
 escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new 
 universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion 
 years! Just try to calculate the


The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an 
interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, 
pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant 
equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one 
leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The 
equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, 
or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, 
capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose 
entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, 
I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal 
wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally 
characterised as parallel universes coming into existence but that isn't 
a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible 
that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction).
 

 number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number 
 that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper 
 in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even 
 express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think 
 through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts 
 of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond 
 counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, 
 especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it 
 conclusively.


If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but 
it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of 
them on this very list. Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David 
Deutsch? That's what Americans would call MWI 101 or The MWI for 
dummies. If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of 
worlds which can only ever differentiate, not split or branch or any 
of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate 
greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain 
physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the 
fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under 
certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) 
is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the 
continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time 
(if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders 
of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI 
violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A 
simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The 
equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have 
trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably 
prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to 
obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 
to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator 
is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into 
2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that 
99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do 
all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in our 
universe (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but 
how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which are 
normally atoms, but could in theory be photons, electrons, etc) ? Where is 
the calculation performed? This is a massive parallel

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 algorithm generating all numbers,
 0, 1, 2,  6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite
 incompressible strings,


 How can a finite string be incompressible?  6999500235148668 in base
 6999500235148669 is just 10.


It took you 2 more digits to represent that number in that way.

Jason

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 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 humans, or
 we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and
 some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly
 improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that
 are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that
 the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.

 you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
 quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
 entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
 one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially
 escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new
 universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion
 years! Just try to calculate the


 The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an
 interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse,
 pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant
 equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one
 leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The
 equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event,
 or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves,
 capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose
 entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is,
 I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal
 wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally
 characterised as parallel universes coming into existence but that isn't
 a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible
 that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction).


 number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest
 number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not
 enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire
 universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use
 common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And
 it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied
 exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up
 with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that
 decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.


 If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but
 it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of
 them on this very list. Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David
 Deutsch? That's what Americans would call MWI 101 or The MWI for
 dummies. If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of
 worlds which can only ever differentiate, not split or branch or any
 of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate
 greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain
 physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the
 fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under
 certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR)
 is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the
 continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time
 (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders
 of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI
 violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A
 simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The
 equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have
 trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably
 prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to
 obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2
 to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator
 is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into
 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that
 99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do
 all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in our
 universe (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but
 how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


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?


Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace 
(over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability values for the 
different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you get from there to a 
definite result?  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 consciousness 
being relative to the different outcomes?


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?


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 the 
present. Price's old book seems to imply this as well.


Cramer's transactional interpretation is non-local.


Not really.  It's slower-than-light, but retro.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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...

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 processor cycles of comp.

No, the computational steps have nothing to do with the computed time.
Just as when
I run a Monte Carlo simulation of some events occuring as a Poisson process
I can
use a random number generator to produce the event times, but they are not
produced
in the order they occur in simulated time.

Brent

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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,

  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?


 Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under
 a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the
 probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement
 operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Jesse Mazer

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 perspective (like a universe defined by the universal
dovetailer), he just integrates it into the rest of his ideas in a novel
way. The first person to discover this idea may be Hugh Everett III, who is
quoted in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/#6 saying of his
interpretation of QM that the formal theory is objectively continuous and
causal, while subjectively discontinuous and probabilistic (this quote is
from 1973, but I suspect one could find quotes from his original 1957
thesis that explicitly or implicitly suggest this idea of subjective
randomness despite the determinism of wavefunction evolution governed by
the Schroedinger equation).

Jesse


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



 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 mini-spacetimes that
 emerge from quantum events have be aligned due to linking at common events.


 I have not, but my point is there is already a form of randomness we know
 of that does not need quarum mechanics, indeed quantum randomness itself
 may only be a special case of this new type of randomness (discovered by
 Bruno).

 Jason

 Separate spaces are dimensionally independent. When they merge via common
 dimensional events there can be no deterministic alignment thus randomness
 arises.

 Edgar

 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:08:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
 simply is no true classical level randomness.


 Have you gotten to step 3 in the UDA yet?  It explains how true
 randomness can emerge without assuming QM.

 Jason

 There is plenty of non-computability which is often mistaken for
 randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up
 from the quantum level.

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact.
 However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these
 computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum
 level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical
 level depending on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  --
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,

2013-12-28 Thread Craig Weinberg



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 '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? 


Through introspection we can find out what we mean by machine. When we do, 
I think that we find that we mean automatic, unconscious, unfeeling, 
superficial, etc. The fact that we can introspect at all is, by that sense 
of machine, diametrically opposed to mechanism.
 


 Finally, I'm not so sure that it is 'consciousness' (yet another word that 
 is frequently thrown around as a symbol with no proper referent) that is 
 responsible for uniqueness and unrepeatability as it is the infinitesimally 
 small chance that all of the quantum correlations that exist in a current 
 observer moment could ever be repeated... and if they could, that would 
 nevertheless include no information about whether the entire state had been 
 repeated or not. 


I don't think that any state can be literally repeated, as the totality is 
present in all states.
 


 I dunno, seems like a lot of hand waving to me... I do feel rather 
 convinced of precisely the sentiment that the quotation you led off with 
 expresses, namely that we are machines made of machines made of machines 
 made of... information eventually. And the information is processed by some 
 set of very fundamental rules.

 What are rules and how can anything 'follow' them?
  

I do get your rejoinder, however which I think is something like: If 
 everything is information fundamentally operating according to 
 computational principles, why on earth would there be something that it 
 is like to be that computation? Whence the inner life and rich inner 
 experiences we have access to in introspection?


Not inner fire or rich experience, but *any* experience at all.
 

 Whence the qualia? And honestly, I don't have an answer for that.


But I think that I do, and it seems to make more sense than information.
 

 I take it your answer (sorry to rehash some of this, but I find it helpful 
 to deepen my understanding) is that everything is endowed with primitive 
 sense making faculties,


Close, but I'm actually proposing that there is no everything other than 
sense making faculties. Sense experience is all there can ever be.
 

 kind of like a panpsychism. 


I say Primordial Identity Pansensitivity
 

 I'm wondering, why can't this axiom simply be added on to the idea that we 
 are machines made of information? i.e. we are machines made of information 
 and information itself has an inner life?  


Because information has no plausible reason to have or want an inner life. 
With the sense primitive, it is perfectly plausible to imagine that the 
invention of a common structure would serve to organize and enhance 
aesthetic values. With the information primitive, both sense and physics 
are incoherent and absurd.


 It's beginning to sound a lot like woo, so I'd better stop there. 


Seems ok to me?

Thanks,
Craig
 


 Best regards,

 Dan



 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:40:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:

 humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,


 I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect 
 on their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine 
 that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact.

 I agree that there is an intrinsic limit to Strong AI, but I think that 
 the limit is at the starting gate. Since consciousness is the embodiment of 
 uniqueness and unrepeatability, there is no almost conscious. It doesn't 
 matter how much the artist in the painting looks like he is really painting 
 himself in the mirror, or how realistic Escher makes the staircase look, 
 those realities are forever sculpted in theory, not in the multisense 
 realism.



-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality


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 number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. 
but a
simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2,  
6999500235148668,
... generates all random finite incompressible strings,


How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 
6999500235148669
is just 10.


It took you 2 more digits to represent that number in that way.


But I wouldn't have if everybody knew that our numbering system was base 
6999500235148669.

Brent
There are only 10 kind of people in the world. Those who think in binary and those who 
don't.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


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. You might consult 
a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is not necessary to test and apply 
a theory.  The interpretation is only of philosophical interest because it may lead to 
other, better theories.


Brent




On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 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 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?


Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a 
partial
trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability 
values for
the different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you 
get from
there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

Brent



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes

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 can be an ordered state if much
more elements are included) - not to mention my  insecurity when it comes
to 'data' (what kind?) etc. in an unlimited agnostic view.

Your #2-a - we are not in a position of restricting a process into
'nondeterminism' without the knowledge of ALL possible (and impossible?)
variations. The infinite interplay within the 'infinite complexity'
(unknowable to us) is in *some way* detrministic - not within our human
mind of today maybe.
#2-b: - chaotic sounds similar to random to me (resolvable in some way in
due time/course). Pseudo-random is close to the 'conditional random of the
given circumstances' what I mentioned with my discussion with Russell. The
weather is unknown, good for the weatherman to make a living. Too many so
far unobservables included into the final outcome. With your modern
ciphers I claim ignorance.

Your #3 comes back to the infinite (and mostly still unknowable) variables,
yet influencing OUR probabilities(?) where I see no usable ground for a
'uniform' distribution. Akin to my denial of 'statistical'.

Look at all these conditions in a framework of 1000, 3000, 5000 years ago
and imagine 2000 years hence (if you can/dare).

Agnosticism is a hard thing to abide by.

Respectfully
John Mikes


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 first person indeterminacy
b. Unpredictable in practice, such as chaotic, or pseudo-random
 processes (the weather, or the output of modern ciphers).
 3. A variable whose value has a some probabilistic distribution
 (especially when the distribution is uniform)

 Jason



 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 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:
 non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
 is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain
 and that would be the end of randomity.
 I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the take any
 number - however many of these are joking.
 I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk
 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
 circumstances of the topic.

 John Mikes


 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There
 simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of
 non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true
 randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact.
 However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these
 computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum
 level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical
 level depending on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum)
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 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

Re: All randomness is quantum...

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 randomness and this type of 
non-coputability.

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:37:20 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

 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 first person indeterminacy
b. Unpredictable in practice, such as chaotic, or pseudo-random 
 processes (the weather, or the output of modern ciphers).
 3. A variable whose value has a some probabilistic distribution 
 (especially when the distribution is uniform)

 Jason



 On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 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: 
 non-explainable by circumstances leading to it, what
 is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain 
 and that would be the end of randomity. 
 I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the take any 
 number - however many of these are joking. 
 I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk 
 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
 circumstances of the topic. 

 John Mikes


 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important 
 topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

 As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There 
 simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of 
 non-computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true 
 randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level. 

 At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. 
 However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these 
 computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum 
 level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical 
 level depending on the information structures involved.

 To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they 
 don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) 
 randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses 
 contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to 
 completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the 
 code and/or data.

 Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to 
 randomness and fails

 Edgar



  -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?


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 and 
calculate, which leads no where really.





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.


So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor 
dead,
both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead?  If you, (and 
I think
you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely 
dead, then
about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed 
and not
decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the
superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to 
difficulties
explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to 
exist).


Superposition is just a question of basis.  An eigenstate in one basis is a
superposition in another.


Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously be considered to 
be both in a superposition and not?  Is this like the superposition having collapsed for 
Wigner's friend while remaining for Wigner before he enters the room?




?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of basis states - 
that's just Hilbert space math.


The collapse for Wigner's friend can be interpreted either epistemically or by 
MWI.

Brent
Anny: What happened to that poor cat? It looks half dead.
Erwin: I don't know. Ask Wigner.
Eugene: I just looked in and it collapsed!

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 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?


 Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
 a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
 probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
 operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

 Brent
  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

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 instance from a probabilistic set. Here's
what I wrote in another context recently:

Probability has several different meanings and philosophers argue over them as if one must
settle on the real meaning. But this is a mistake. Just like “cost” or “energy”,
“probability” is useful precisely because the same value has different interpretations.
There are four interpretations that commonly come up.

1.It has a mathematical definition that lets us manipulate it and draw inferences
(Kolmogorov).

2.It has a physical interpretation as a symmetry (principle of insufficient
reason).
3.It quantifies a degree of belief that tells us whether to act on it (Bayesian decision
theory).

4.It has an empirical meaning that lets us measure it (frequentist statistics).

The usefulness of probability is that we can start with one of these, we can then
manipulate it mathematically, and then interpret the result in one of the other ways.

Brent
Probability is never having to say you're certain.

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
randomness and this type of non-coputability.

Edgar

Re: What are wavefunctions?


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 jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Jason,

Answers to your 3 questions.

1. No.


If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then 
how does
your interpretation address the EPR paradox (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )?  As a previously
mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one 
known
solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL 
influences, and
that is Everett's theory of many-worlds.

Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox.


Is this the same as, or related to Cramer's transactional 
interpretation?


No, it's a lot simpler. It doesn't add any new physics, and removes one 
assumption.


What is that assumption that is removed?


That simple quantum events have a built in arrow of time. This assumption isn't in the 
physics, but it's usually in the minds of people when they try to explain EPR, for 
example, by saying that certain things can't happen without FTL signalling. Saying 
this assumes that the particles involved are constrained by what happened to them in the 
past, but not constrained by what will happen to them in the future. This is a very 
powerful assumption, built into our nature as macroscopic creatures who are 
(unfortunately) all too susceptible to the effects of the entropy gradient - but there 
is no reason it should apply to, for example, individual photons. Assuming that photons 
act like people as far as the arrow of time goes skews our ideas of what is reasonable 
behaviour for quantum systems, and (according to Prof Price and others) leads us to see 
lots of things as weird / spooky when they are actually merely exhibiting the time 
symmetry inherent in the laws of physics.


If we allow past /and/ future constraints to affect particles, for example, any need for 
FTL effects to explain EPR vanishes, because all the information involved is carried by 
the particles themselves, which of course never travel FTL. It just happens to be 
carried in both time directions, with the photon's state in mid-flight affected by both 
the event that generated it in the past and the measurement that will be applied to it 
in the future.


Right.  This is the same as the idea put forward by Vic Stenger in Timeless Reality and 
Elizur and Dolev in the paper I cited. Information travels both ways along a particle 
worldline - which is consistent with the time symmetry of the equations.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 
works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results...

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 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?


 Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
 a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
 probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
 operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

 Brent
  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


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?


And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the equations.  That is 
taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the pointer 
basis).  This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation.


Brent



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 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?


Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a 
partial
trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability 
values for
the different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you 
get from
there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

Brent

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


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 interpretations or choosing 
between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable 
results...


But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the measured values are 
random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only produces one of the 
probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what 
QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just says what do you 
expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every time with 
different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences.


What do you say?

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 we have to discard the background spacetime notion and 
replace it with individual private spacetimes created as entanglement 
networks.

But this is NOT MW, what actually happens is those mini-spacetimes merge 
via common events to create the single world.

I know this probably isn't clear, but it's immensely important and is the 
theory that I propose in Part III: Elementals of my book.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:11:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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 assumes a background space-time in which the universal 
 wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single 
 world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction 
 with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why 
 this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which 
 *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.



 On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: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.

 Edgar



 On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 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 verified mathematical theory with predictable 
 results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
 does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
 very notion of collapse.


 OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
 Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
 why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
 position observable as important for thought process and measurement.

 Bruno



 Edgar



 On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
 don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
 you are saying.

 As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
 experience 


 Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
 exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
  

 whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
 equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 

 ...

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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, 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?

 And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the 
 equations.  That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some 
 particular basis (the pointer basis).  This is not an evolution of the 
 Schrodinger equation.

 Brent

  
  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 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?


 Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
 a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
 probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
 operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

 Brent
  
  -- 
 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 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 
 interpretations or choosing 
  between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
 produces predictable 
  results... 

 But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
 measured values are 
 random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
 produces one of the 
 probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
 probabilities, which is what 
 QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
 says what do you 
 expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
 time with 
 different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
 experiences. 

 What do you say? 

 Brent 


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

  AFAIK, the first possibility could be seen as what a single observer
might perceive and calculate of its world. The latter tries to take
the perceptions of many observers and organize them into a single
structure. I see no necessary conflict between them.



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  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.
 You might consult a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is
 not necessary to test and apply a theory.  The interpretation is only of
 philosophical interest because it may lead to other, better theories.

 Brent




  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,

  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?


 Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under
 a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the
 probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement
 operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  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 consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

 Brent


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

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 and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the
 other is shut up and calculate, which leads no where really.







  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.


  So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive
 nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead?  If
 you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive
 or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a
 state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you
 are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations
 do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers
 work (which require the superposition to exist).


  Superposition is just a question of basis.  An eigenstate in one basis
 is a superposition in another.


  Can you provide a concrete example where some system can simultaneously
 be considered to be both in a superposition and not?  Is this like the
 superposition having collapsed for Wigner's friend while remaining for
 Wigner before he enters the room?



 ?? Every pure state can be written as a superposition of a complete set of
 basis states - that's just Hilbert space math.


So then when is the system not in a superposition?

Jason


 The collapse for Wigner's friend can be interpreted either epistemically
 or by MWI.

 Brent
 Anny: What happened to that poor cat? It looks half dead.
 Erwin: I don't know. Ask Wigner.
 Eugene: I just looked in and it collapsed!

 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

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 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, ... generates all random finite
 incompressible strings,


  How can a finite string be incompressible?  6999500235148668 in base
 6999500235148669 is just 10.


  It took you 2 more digits to represent that number in that way.


 But I wouldn't have if everybody knew that our numbering system was base
 6999500235148669.


You should patent this and sell the compression algorithm to youtube. :-)

Jason

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

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 reality 
math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations 
mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, 
not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations 
somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes 
an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with 
reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual 
reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality 
and thus doesn't apply to actual reality.

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 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 
 interpretations or choosing 
  between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
 produces predictable 
  results... 

 But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
 measured values are 
 random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
 produces one of the 
 probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
 probabilities, which is what 
 QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
 says what do you 
 expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
 time with 
 different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
 experiences. 

 What do you say? 

 Brent 


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?