Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:04:47 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 25 Nov 2017, at 19:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: ​>​>>​ ​Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million

Re: [foar] Bell's theorem

On 24 Nov 2017, at 03:43, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jul 2013, at 20:30, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Kermit Rose wrote: > Is not the polarization of the photon the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 25 Nov 2017, at 18:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:22:37 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote: I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In weighing in here I might be making an error of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 20:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I was just explaining that a measurement is any memorable interaction, which is simplest to illustrate with a tensor product of Alice (|A>)and a simple

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 11:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:18 AM, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 26 November 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:45 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I think your distaste with MWI comes from an incorrect view of how splitting occurs. Shooting a photon of at a slit doesn't instantly create millions or infinite numbers of universes. *But that's NOT what the enthusiasts

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 7:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:48 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 26 November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Consistency of Postulates of QM

wrote: > >>> ​>>​ >>> As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The >>> electron, say, moves >>> ​ ​ >>> through space as a wave -- which explains the interference effects due >>> to splitting into >>> ​t​ >>> wo waves, each emanating from one of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> If there is a repetition, is it really a different universe? >> >> > ​> ​ > Yes, because it would be located in a different position in the multiverse. > ​How do you even know they are is a different position, what does

Is AI really a threat to mankind?

IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 1:05 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:59:33 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > wrote: > > > > > ​> ​ > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, > > but NOT the MWI, > > > ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that? And how can you > have a

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:09:36 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: > -

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the

Dreamless Sleep?

https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists -- 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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 28/11/2017 11:17 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that?

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 9:10 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: - Large scale unemployment/disempowerment of people who cannot compete with

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​ > Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: > > "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them > today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are close for the Löb rule, or having Löb's theorem for its bewesibar predicate) that if she ever

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Scary video...because it's nearly true. http://autonomousweapons.org/ Brent On 11/27/2017 1:32 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: - Large scale

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 7:41 am, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ > Alan deliberately uses the term "Multiverse" to refer to the string > ​ > landscape. And I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation theory Multiverse and both are related to the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > > > ​> ​ > > > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:22:04 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ​> ​ > > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have > merit, > > > but NOT

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

mana On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves > ​ ​ > through space as a wave -- which explains the interference effects due to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Russell Standish >wrote: ​> ​ Alan deliberately uses the term "Multiverse" to refer to the string ​ landscape. And I think think the string