Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Telmo Menezes]

On 20 April 2018 at 19:04, John Clark  wrote:
> I never got past the first line of Bruno’s post because he said:
>
> "Consider any Turing universal machinery, for example the programming
> language c++”
>
> C++ is Turing complete but is not a Turing machine because machines are
> physical objects made of atoms but C++ is not nor is any language. As for
> Löbian machines that is yet another term that Bruno made up and is seen on
> this list but nowhere else.

You sound like one of the peer-reviewers who rejected Turing's paper.
It's almost uncanny. He said:

"This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing device
absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism [...]"

In his defense, at least he understood that it was meant to be a
formalism, and not the plans to build an actual device.

> And Turing explained exactly precisely how to
> make one of his machines in the real physical world

Nope. Turing machines have infinite tapes. They cannot possibly be
created in the physical world. They were proposed by Turing as an
*abstract* model of computation, and he was upfront about it. Turing
created this model to answer theoretical questions, not to propose
some device. C++ is itself an abstract model and it is Turing
universal, but it does not make sense to say that my physical computer
is Turing universal because it does not have infinite memory, nor
could it. You fundamentally miss the point of theoretical computer
science.

> but Bruno has no idea
> how to even start to build one of his machines, which means he doesn’t
> understand how it works

Let us know where we can get our hand on some infinite capacity hard
drives. I'm sick of paying through the nose for backups.

> or even exactly what it is he’s talking about.

You're a bully.

Telmo.

>
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Bruno,

>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>
> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will influence 
> a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second God" 
> (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches which 
> kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being burned 
> alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological secret (a 
> theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>
> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of 
> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of 
> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we 
> found the second lost part!).
>
> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, 
> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi 
> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived 
> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible Enlightenment.
>
> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to 
> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the 
> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method 
> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and I 
> would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>
> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created 
> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will 
> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid 
> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking 
> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of research.
>
>
>
>
>> I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of 
> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive 
> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that class. 
> No universal machine!

I agree, but it is sold as one.

> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>
> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the 
> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the eyes 
> on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic and 
> muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist theology, and 
> often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect to burning at 
> stake.
>
> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent 
> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>
>
>
>
>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on.
>
> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was 
> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole 
> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the 
> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of 
> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of 
> the notion of “Whole”.
>
> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the 
> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus 
> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in 
> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong 
> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after I 
> see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed by 
> Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative 
> hypothesis” from the Parmenides.

Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those
cannot be seen in the light of the culture created by the monotheistic
religions.

>> Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
>> were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>
> I know that you don’t confuse the popular myth and the theories discussed in 
> Plato Academy, but careful as many do this confusion. To be a theologian at 
> that time, you need a diploma in Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, 
> Arithmetic, Music. Hypatia was both mathematician and theologian, and that 
> was common. She was a great 

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 01:04:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> I never got past the first line of Bruno’s post because he said:
> 
> "*Consider any Turing universal machinery, for example the programming
> language c++*”
> 
> C++ is Turing complete but is not a Turing machine because machines are
> physical objects made of atoms but C++ is not nor is any language.

Nor is a Turing machine for that matter. It is an abstract model of
computation. For Bruno, the term "machine" means such an abstract model.

> As
> for Löbian machines that is yet another term that Bruno made up and is seen
> on this list but nowhere else. And Turing explained exactly precisely how
> to make one of his machines in the real physical world but Bruno has no
> idea how to even start to build one of his machines, which means he doesn’t
> understand how it works or even exactly what it is he’s talking about.
>

I suspect he does know how to write a "Loebian machine" in Lisp or
Prolog (say), but I wanted to press him a bit on this. If he can do
this much, then it is a relatively trivial matter to install a lisp
interpreter on a PC, run the program and reify it as a physical machine.
 
-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>> ​>​
>> And Turing explained exactly precisely how to make one of his machines in
>> the real physical world
>
>
> *​> ​Nope. Turing machines have infinite tapes.*


Nope. Turing machines don’t need infinite tape, they need sufficient tape,
if you start to run out of tape then add more, but after any finite number
of operations only a finite amount of tape is needed. And with calculating
something like the Busy Beaver number only those machines that halt after a
finite number of operations count, in fact in ANY successful calculation
the machine will eventually halt. Yes some machines will never halt (like
the Turing Machine programed to find the 7918th Busy Beaver number) and so
you will keep adding tape forever, but that is the very definition of
non-computability. But even in that case at any given time the machine only
has or needs a finite amount of tape.



> ​> ​
> *They were proposed by Turing as an​ ​*abstract* model of computation,​
> ​and he was upfront about it.*


Turing never claimed there were not far more complicated ways for an
engineer to make a computer, ways that worked faster and were far more
practical but were more difficult to understand. But he did show that any
computer could be reduced to his very simple machine, and people have
actually built real physical machines that work exactly as Turing said they
would. When Bruno does more than just write mathematical symbols on a piece
of paper and makes a working physical model of a "Löbian machine " (and I
don't care if its ridiculously slow and impractical ) I'll retract
everything I said and place Bruno’s name next to Turing’s on my list of
greats. All I want is to see a working model of a physical "Löbian machine
" that is the equivalent to this model Turing Machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY


​> ​
> *You're a bully.*

And you are a delicate snowflake who can't handle scientific criticism, and
a fool too if you think Bruno has said anything profound.

​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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

>
​>>​
>>  C++ is Turing complete but is not a Turing machine because machines are
>>  physical objects made of atoms but C++ is not nor is any language.
>
>
> *​> ​Nor is a Turing machine for that matter.*


​
This Turing machine certainly seems to be made of matter, atoms in
particular
​:​


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY


​> *​*
> *I suspect he does know how to write a "Loebian machine" in Lisp or​
> ​Prolog*


If so then a "Loebian machine" is just a type of Turing Machine and Bruno
has not discovered anything fundamental that Turing didn't know about 82
years ago
​.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you 
understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion.


A sufficiently persistent and shared illusion is about as good a reality 
as you can ask for.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 9:07:37 PM UTC, smitra wrote:
>
> On 21-04-2018 21:44, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
>  One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact 
> >> that 
>  the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. 
> >> So, in 
>  any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
> >> only 
>  the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
> >>> 
> >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
> >>> already refers to multiple points in 3space. 
> >>> 
> >>> Brent 
> >> 
> >> Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects. 
> >> 
> >> Saibal 
> > 
> > Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the singlet 
> > system doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that 
> > establish non locality. AG 
>
>
> What the Bell statistics prove is that any hidden variable theory that 
> would explain why in an experiment we obtain one result rather than one 
> of the other possible results, would necessarily have to be a non-local 
> theory. This means that if we reject non-local theories, we have to 
> reject any hidden variable theory. 
>
> While one considers the special case of entangled particles to get this 
> result, the conclusion is, of course, valid in general: If there were a 
> hidden variable theory underlying QM, it would have to fully reproduce 
> QM and one can then show using the special case of entangled particles 
> that the actual dynamics of the hidden variable theory must be 
> non-local. 
>
> But as long as we stay away from any hypothetical hidden variable theory 
> (there isn't a shred of evidence for such theories) any non-locality 
> associated with such theories is totally irrelevant. 
>
> Saibal 
>

I really don't understand your comments, which doesn't mean they're wrong. 
I will try again. However, I do think that since collapse is presumed to be 
instantaneous, it seems to imply non locality. Aren't we assuming collapse 
in the analysis of the singlet state? If so, non locality is baked in the 
pie, so to speak. AG
 

>
>
> >  -- 
> >  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > [1]. 
> >  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. 
> > 
> > 
> > Links: 
> > -- 
> > [1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>  Turing machines don’t need infinite tape, they need sufficient tape,
>> ​
>>  if you start to run out of tape then add more,
>
>
> *​> ​And for the general case there will be instances where you always
> need more.*


Any calculation will ALWAYS require only a *finite* amount of tape, if more
tape is ALWAYS required then the problem can not be calculated
​.​


> ​> ​
> Non-Turing universal machines can perform some computations. Even
> ​
> useful ones, for sure.
>

Well..., I admit none of the 64 possible one state Turing Machine is
universal and none of the 20,736 possible two state Turing Machines is
either, and I admit even a one state machine could perform useful
calculations, but if you know how to make a one state machine then it is a
trivial matter to make a N state machine, and that is universal. And a one
state machine is as simple as things get, anything simpler can't calculate
anything.

​> ​
> Computations realized in the physical world will always stop,


​I agree they will always stop but they will not always produce an answer.


> ​>​
> * If you apply to Turing the same demands that​ you apply to Bruno, you
> can only conclude that Turing was a moron for*

* working on mathematical models that correspond to machines that
> cannot​ exist.*


The difference is a Turing Machine in the real physical world can very
often make calculations, often enough to create a trillion dollar industry
​​
, and Turing told us exactly how to build such a device, but Bruno's
"Löbian machine" can NEVER make a calculation in the real physical world
because Bruno has no idea how to make one.


> ​> ​
> These machines are finite approximations of the machine that Turing
> ​
> defined,


A Turing Machine exists in the real physical world that can calculate 2+2
and that machine has no need to be infinite and the answer it produces is
exact not approximate. But Bruno can't even tell how to build a "finite
approximation" of a Löbian machine in the real physical world.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 3:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:



On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:
> On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:
 One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact
>>> that
 the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.
>>> So, in
 any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows
from
>>> only
 the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects
>>>
>>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
>>> already
>>> refers to multiple points in 3space.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have
>>> multiple
>>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG
>>
>>  The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial
>> coordinates.
>>
>>  Brent
>>
>>  OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG
>>
>>  So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
>> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the
all the
>> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
>> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
>> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
>> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at
remote
>> places.
>>
>>  Brent
>
> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the
> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two
> particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was
> created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects
in an
> ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so
there is
> then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the
> entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put
> ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two
> particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors
of the
> entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and
> Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in
them at
> all.

Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes 
instantaneous collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's 
inequality is, or must be violated?  AG


No, I'm not assuming collapse.  I'm assuming strictly unitary evolution, 
which per Everett, Zeh, Zurek, et al causes the wave-function to evolve 
into effectively orthogonal components, i.e. the cross terms in the 
reduced density matrix tend to zero.  But, according to standard QM, 
this happens on a time scale independent of the distant of the spacelike 
separation of the events.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* >


On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of
the wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The
correlated two particle state is either put in by hand or one
has shown how it was created. In the former case one is
introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a theory
that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to
explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state
itself results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and
Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors
of the entire system that now also includes the state vectors
of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial
non-local effects in them at all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables 
theory.


Saibal


There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself 
-- nothing to do with the dynamics.


Bruce

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:


> ​> ​
>
> *As​ ​​R​ussell said, an approximation of the Löbian machine can probably
> be derived from Bruno's post in Prolog.*


Then a
​"​
Löbian machine
​"​
is just a particular Turing Machine and there is nothing fundamentally new
about it.


>
> ​> ​
> I am complaining about
> ​
> personal insults. For example, in the sentence above you insult both
> me and Bruno without providing anything of substance.


​
Mr.Snowflake, I'll let others decide if I am a bully or not as you claim,
but I maintain it is a fact you can't handle scientific criticism, and it
it is true then is a statement with substance.


> you used the classical bully technique
> ​
> of
> ​
> making fun of his mode of expression with "ad hominem".


I think it would be fair to say  nobody on this list has received more
personal insults than I have, but I have never once used that ridiculous
Latin phrase.

​> ​
> *I think you make a basic logic mistake. It is true that some
> brilliant​ people are assholes, but being an asshole does not make you
> brilliant.*
>

 Maybe I've got my Latin wrong, please explain to me again what "ad
hominem" means.

​ 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 7:27:33 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl >
>
> On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>> So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
>> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
>> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
>> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
>> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
>> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
>> places.
>>
>>  Brent
>>
>
> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
> explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
> results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
> locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their locations. 
> The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the 
> state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
> non-local effects in them at all.
>
> Saibal
>
>
> I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between 'local 
> interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled singlet case 
> we have a non-local state since it involves two particles that are 
> correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how far apart they 
> are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are made at 
> time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied that the 
> interactions involved in the separate measurements on the two particles are 
> all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle the particles with 
> environmental degrees of freedom are all local, unitary interactions. 
> Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of the density matrix, 
> and the effective separation of copies of the experimenters that obtained 
> different results, but this effective collapse of the wave-function is 
> brought about by purely local interactions.
>
> The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects points 
> to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement and 
> decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no non-locality. But 
> this entirely misses the fact that the original singlet state:
>
>  |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)
>
> is intrinsically non-local.
>

*You say it is "intrinsically non local", but isn't that because you are 
assuming instantaneous collapse? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the 
singlet state is established as, or proven to be non local by the fact that 
in experiments Bell's inequality is violated? AG*
 

> It refers to correlations due to angular momentum conservation that 
> persist over arbitrary separations, and these correlations are neither 
> enhanced nor destroyed by any number of purely local interactions.
>
> So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not 
> obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic state 
> that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The point to be 
> made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a non-collapse theory, are 
> there any non-local interactions: all interactions in measurement and 
> decoherence are local. But that does not mean that what one does to one 
> particle of the singlet does not affect the other particle -- directly and 
> instantaneously. It is just that this effect is not instantiated by a local 
> (or non-local) hidden variable. There are no faster-than-light physical 
> transfers of information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and 
> there are none such.
>
> The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in that it 
> is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions are 
> necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the separated 
> singlet particles as forming a single point in configuration space may help 
> one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note that the tensor product 
> Hilbert space of the two spin states is independent of spatial separation.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 4:41 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already
refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent

I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have
multiple
points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG


 The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial
coordinates.

 Brent

 OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG

 So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
places.

 Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in 
an ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there 
is then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of 
the entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice 
and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in 
them at all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables 
theory.


It's non-local because the wave-function value at event x changes dues 
event y even though x and y are spacelike.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 8:39 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:
Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI 
there is no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in the 
MWI either, it's only an effective splitting that can be interpreted 
as an effective collapse as observed in the various effective worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike separated from it.

Brent


And that ability for Alice to predict what Bob will find, poses a 
problem for single world collapse theories. Only there does new 
information appear after a measurement and that then happens in a 
non-local way when making certain measurements on entangled pairs of 
particles.


There are only four cases without collapse and in every case Alice can 
predict Bob's result.  The very fact, which you have brought up, that 
any hidden variable theory that explains the results must be non-local 
(like Bohmian QM) shows that effect is non-local.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 08:08:50PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> 
> ​> ​
> > *Yes, of course a Loebian machine is a type of Turing machine.*
> 
> 
> How can I determine if that particular Turing Machine is doing something
> fundamentally different from what every other Turing Machine is doing?
> 

I would say that it is a machine that proves Loeb's theorem. Not all
Turing machines are capable of that, even universal machines absent
the right software. But I may have misunderstood this :).

> 
> > ​> *​*
> >
> >
> > *The question I want to ask is has Hod Lipson built a Loebian machine in
> > physical matter?*
> 
> 
> ​There is no way I can ever know if ​
> Hod Lipson
> ​'s robots are self aware, I don't even know if ​
> Hod Lipson
> ​ is self aware, all I know for sure is that both behave intelligently. ​
>

His argument is that his robot is self-aware, for some operational
definition of self-aware. Of course this claim is bound to be
controversial.  Regardless, I'm curious as to the relationship between
that and Loebianity.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* >


On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA >

  I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
 'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled
 singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two
particles
 that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how
far
 apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are
 made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
 that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the
two
 particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle
the
 particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local,
unitary
 interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
 the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
 experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
 collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
 interactions.

  The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects
 points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement
 and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
 non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
 singlet state:

   |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

  is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular
 momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
 these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number
of
 purely local interactions.

  So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do
not
 obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
 state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
 point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
 non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
 interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that does
 not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
 affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just
 that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden
 variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
 information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there
are
 none such.

  The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in
that
 it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions
 are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
 separated singlet particles as forming a single point in
configuration
 space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note
that
 the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is
independent
 of spatial separation.

  Bruce

 Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality aspects
in single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she makes her
measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's
measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue in the
MWI.

 Saibal

 There is no difference between collapse and no-collapse theories in
this regard. MWI does not eliminate the non-locality in the
wave-function for the singlet state. This can easily be seen by
following the unitary development of my state |psi> above through its
interactions with the measuring device, observer, and the environment.
The extra worlds in MWI just come along for the ride -- they do not
add anything of substance to the argument. All the discussion about
whether Bell's theorem is invalid for MWI because he assumed collapse,
or he assumed counterfactual definiteness, or he assumed that
measurements had only one outcome, etc,  is totally irrelevant to the
issue of non-locality. It is in the original quantum state, so it is
not eliminated by simply retaining all possible measurement results.

 Bruce


In the MWI the non-locality becomes a common cause effect that can be 
traced back to the creation of the entangled spins. As pointed out by 
Vaidman here:


https://youtu.be/jKGuGptafvo?t=1876 

it's in the ordinary collapse models where there is real problem.

Saibal
Vaidman seems to be trying to demolish Bohm in this video -- nothing 
intelligent about any "common cause" effect for Bell-type correlations. 
It seems that Vaidman is really playing with idea of retro-causality. 
And such things are orthogonal to many worlds. Indeed, the whole thing 
seems very confused. The only thing that was clear was that Vaidman 
adamantly rejects non-locality -- 

Re:: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* >

On 22-04-2018 06:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 8:39 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:

Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that
in the MWI there is no collapse. There is no real
"splitting of Worlds" in the MWI either, it's only an
effective splitting that can be interpreted as an
effective collapse as observed in the various
effective worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike
separated from it.

Brent


And that ability for Alice to predict what Bob will find,
poses a problem for single world collapse theories. Only there
does new information appear after a measurement and that then
happens in a non-local way when making certain measurements on
entangled pairs of particles.


There are only four cases without collapse and in every case Alice can
predict Bob's result.  The very fact, which you have brought up, that
any hidden variable theory that explains the results must be non-local
(like Bohmian QM) shows that effect is non-local.

Brent


In case of a collapse theory, the non-local effect is far more 
problematic. Alice then finds a result at her place and because there 
is no other copy of her who found the other result, new information 
has appeared. And that means that Bob's result is now also well 
defined but the information about his measurement exists at a 
space-like separation. In the MWI Bob may know that Alice has already 
made her measurement, but he would also know that Alice exists as a 
superposition of two copies who will have found two different results, 
so there exists no information about what he is about to find later 
when he will measure his spin at the distant location where Alice is 
as that entire place is in a superposition.


Saibal


That is where the wave-function comes in: the wave function acts 
non-locally to ensure that when Bob does make his measurement, he will 
only obtain results that agree with angular momentum conservation -- his 
results cannot be arbitrary because that would violate the basic 
conservation law enshrined in the singlet wave-function. Bob's 
measurement is independent of Alice, but the state that he is measuring 
is necessarily correlated with Alice's -- changed by Alice's 
measurement. Many worlds does not alter this basic fact.


Bruce

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>
>
> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
> "theos"=god.
> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
> From
> Wikipedia:
>
> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
> in
> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
> for
> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

 "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
>>
>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
>
> Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
> religions are developed as instruments of social control.

You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
example to relieve suffering and provide meaning. Science can help
relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
distilled wisdom of our ancestors.

> Originally they
> were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
> social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
> Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
> and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
> derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
> agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
> conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
> mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
> war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
> way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".


The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
believes that people should be geographically organized according to
the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
social construct.

>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
>> were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>
>
> Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica of
> Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".

You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.

> As Seneca the
> younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
>  by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
>
>> A
>> good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
>> that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
>> the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
>> people like John Clark seem to believe...
>
>
> Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a sin
> worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.

Yes.

>>
>>> But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.
>>
>> He is pretty upfront about that.
>
>
> No he's not.  He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's original
> "true" meaning.

Yes, he states that the original meaning is the correct one. I don't
see how you say that 

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 12:12 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:
One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact that 
the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. So, 
in any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
only the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent


Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects.


Not by itself, there has to be interaction at spacelike separation.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> > *I suspect he does know how to write a "Loebian machine" in Lisp or​
> > ​Prolog*
> 
> 
> If so then a "Loebian machine" is just a type of Turing Machine and Bruno
> has not discovered anything fundamental that Turing didn't know about 82
> years ago
> ​.

Yes, of course a Loebian machine is a type of Turing machine. However,
I doubt that Turing knew about it 82 years ago, given that Loeb's
theorem was only published in 1953. It is possible that Turing knew
about it before his death in 1954, although I rather think that
unlikely, given what was going on in Turing's life then.

The question I want to ask is has Hod Lipson built a Loebian machine
in physical matter?

https://www.ted.com/talks/hod_lipson_builds_self_aware_robots

Cheers.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: 
> > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
>  One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact 
> >>> that 
>  the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. 
> >>> So, in 
>  any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
> >>> only 
>  the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
> >>> 
> >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
> >>> already 
> >>> refers to multiple points in 3space. 
> >>> 
> >>> Brent 
> >>> 
> >>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have 
> >>> multiple 
> >>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG 
> >> 
> >>  The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial 
> >> coordinates. 
> >> 
> >>  Brent 
> >> 
> >>  OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG 
> >> 
> >>  So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity 
> >> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the 
> >> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the 
> >> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross 
> >> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the 
> >> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote 
> >> places. 
> >> 
> >>  Brent 
> > 
> > That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
> > wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
> > particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
> > created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
> > ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
> > then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
> > entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
> > ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
> > particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
> > entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
> > Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at 
> > all. 
>
> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike 
> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal 
> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality. 
>
> Brent 
>

Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes 
instantaneous collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's 
inequality is, or must be violated?  AG 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* >

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:


So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
places.

 Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at all.


Saibal


I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between 
'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled 
singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two particles 
that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how far 
apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are 
made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied that 
the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the two 
particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle the 
particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local, unitary 
interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of the 
density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the 
experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective 
collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local interactions.


The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects 
points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement and 
decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no non-locality. But 
this entirely misses the fact that the original singlet state:


 |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular 
momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and these 
correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number of purely 
local interactions.


So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not 
obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic state 
that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The point to 
be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a non-collapse 
theory, are there any non-local interactions: all interactions in 
measurement and decoherence are local. But that does not mean that what 
one does to one particle of the singlet does not affect the other 
particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just that this effect is 
not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden variable. There are no 
faster-than-light physical transfers of information. That would involve 
a local hidden variable, and there are none such.


The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in that it 
is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions are 
necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the separated 
singlet particles as forming a single point in configuration space may 
help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note that the tensor 
product Hilbert space of the two spin states is independent of spatial 
separation.


Bruce



--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA 


On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:


So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the
all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does. It still zeroes out
cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at
remote
places.

Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in
an ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there
is then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of
the entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice
and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in
them at all.

Saibal


 I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled
singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two particles
that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how far
apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are
made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the two
particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle the
particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local, unitary
interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
interactions.

 The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects
points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement
and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
singlet state:

  |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

 is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular
momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number of
purely local interactions.

 So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not
obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that does
not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just
that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden
variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there are
none such.

 The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in that
it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions
are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
separated singlet particles as forming a single point in configuration
space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note that
the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is independent
of spatial separation.

 Bruce


Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality aspects in 
single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she makes her 
measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's 
measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue in the 
MWI.


Saibal



 --
 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 7:27:33 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl >
>
> On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>> So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
>> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
>> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
>> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
>> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
>> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
>> places.
>>
>>  Brent
>>
>
> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
> explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
> results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
> locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their locations. 
> The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the 
> state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
> non-local effects in them at all.
>
> Saibal
>
>
> I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between 'local 
> interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled singlet case 
> we have a non-local state since it involves two particles that are 
> correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how far apart they 
> are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are made at 
> time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied that the 
> interactions involved in the separate measurements on the two particles are 
> all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle the particles with 
> environmental degrees of freedom are all local, unitary interactions. 
> Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of the density matrix, 
> and the effective separation of copies of the experimenters that obtained 
> different results, but this effective collapse of the wave-function is 
> brought about by purely local interactions.
>
> The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects points 
> to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement and 
> decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no non-locality. But 
> this entirely misses the fact that the original singlet state:
>
>  |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)
>
> is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular 
> momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and these 
> correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number of purely 
> local interactions.
>
> So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not 
> obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic state 
> that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The point to be 
> made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a non-collapse theory, are 
> there any non-local interactions: all interactions in measurement and 
> decoherence are local. But that does not mean that what one does to one 
> particle of the singlet does not affect the other particle -- directly and 
> instantaneously. It is just that this effect is not instantiated by a local 
> (or non-local) hidden variable. There are no faster-than-light physical 
> transfers of information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and 
> there are none such.
>

*So you have two subsystems that are "non-separable", yet the measurements 
of each are indeed, undeniably spatially separated. Is this a problem, or 
do we simply sweep it under the rug by saying there is no physical transfer 
of information? AG *

>
> The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in that it 
> is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions are 
> necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the separated 
> singlet particles as forming a single point in configuration space may help 
> one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note that the tensor product 
> Hilbert space of the two spin states is independent of spatial separation.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

​> ​
> *Yes, of course a Loebian machine is a type of Turing machine.*


How can I determine if that particular Turing Machine is doing something
fundamentally different from what every other Turing Machine is doing?


> ​> *​*
>
>
> *The question I want to ask is has Hod Lipson built a Loebian machine in
> physical matter?*


​There is no way I can ever know if ​
Hod Lipson
​'s robots are self aware, I don't even know if ​
Hod Lipson
​ is self aware, all I know for sure is that both behave intelligently. ​

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *smitra* >


On 22-04-2018 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA >

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the
all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does. It still zeroes out
cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation
of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave
function at
remote
places.

Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how
it was
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local
effects in
an ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so
there
is then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one
can put
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of
the entire system that now also includes the state vectors of
Alice
and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in
them at all.

Saibal


 I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled
singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two particles
that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how far
apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are
made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the two
particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle the
particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local, unitary
interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
interactions.

 The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects
points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement
and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
singlet state:

  |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

 is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular
momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number of
purely local interactions.

 So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not
obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that does
not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just
that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden
variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there are
none such.

 The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in that
it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions
are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
separated singlet particles as forming a single point in configuration
space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note that
the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is independent
of spatial separation.

 Bruce


Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality aspects 
in single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she makes her 
measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's 
measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue in the 
MWI.


Saibal


There is no difference between collapse and no-collapse theories in this 
regard. MWI does not eliminate the non-locality in the wave-function for 
the singlet state. 

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA 


On 22-04-2018 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: SMITRA 

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the
all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does. It still zeroes out
cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at
remote
places.

Brent

That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in
an ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so
there
is then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of
the entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice
and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in
them at all.

Saibal


  I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
 'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled
 singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two
particles
 that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how
far
 apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are
 made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
 that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the
two
 particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle
the
 particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local,
unitary
 interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
 the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
 experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
 collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
 interactions.

  The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects
 points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement
 and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
 non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
 singlet state:

   |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

  is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular
 momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
 these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number
of
 purely local interactions.

  So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do
not
 obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
 state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
 point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
 non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
 interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that does
 not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
 affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just
 that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden
 variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
 information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there
are
 none such.

  The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in
that
 it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions
 are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
 separated singlet particles as forming a single point in
configuration
 space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note
that
 the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is
independent
 of spatial separation.

  Bruce

 Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality aspects
in single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she makes her
measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's
measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue in the
MWI.

 Saibal

 There is no difference between collapse and no-collapse theories in
this regard. MWI does not eliminate the non-locality in the
wave-function for the singlet state. This can easily be seen by
following the unitary development of my state |psi> above through its
interactions with the measuring device, observer, and the environment.
The extra worlds in MWI just come along for the ride -- they do not
add anything of substance to the argument. All the discussion about
whether Bell's theorem is invalid for MWI because he assumed collapse,
or he assumed counterfactual definiteness, or he assumed that
measurements had only one 

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:
Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI there 
is no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in the MWI 
either, it's only an effective splitting that can be interpreted as an 
effective collapse as observed in the various effective worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike separated from 
it.


Brent


And that ability for Alice to predict what Bob will find, poses a 
problem for single world collapse theories. Only there does new 
information appear after a measurement and that then happens in a 
non-local way when making certain measurements on entangled pairs of 
particles.


Saibal

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 06:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 8:39 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:
Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI 
there is no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in the 
MWI either, it's only an effective splitting that can be interpreted 
as an effective collapse as observed in the various effective 
worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike separated from 
it.


Brent


And that ability for Alice to predict what Bob will find, poses a 
problem for single world collapse theories. Only there does new 
information appear after a measurement and that then happens in a 
non-local way when making certain measurements on entangled pairs of 
particles.


There are only four cases without collapse and in every case Alice can
predict Bob's result.  The very fact, which you have brought up, that
any hidden variable theory that explains the results must be non-local
(like Bohmian QM) shows that effect is non-local.

Brent


In case of a collapse theory, the non-local effect is far more 
problematic. Alice then finds a result at her place and because there is 
no other copy of her who found the other result, new information has 
appeared. And that means that Bob's result is now also well defined but 
the information about his measurement exists at a space-like separation. 
In the MWI Bob may know that Alice has already made her measurement, but 
he would also know that Alice exists as a superposition of two copies 
who will have found two different results, so there exists no 
information about what he is about to find later when he will measure 
his spin at the distant location where Alice is as that entire place is 
in a superposition.


Saibal


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already
refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent

I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have
multiple
points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG


 The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial
coordinates.

 Brent

 OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG

 So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
places.

 Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at 
all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike 
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal 
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:35:45 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: 
>> > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: 
>> >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
>>  One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact 
>> >>> that 
>>  the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. 
>> >>> So, in 
>>  any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
>> >>> only 
>>  the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
>> >>> 
>> >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
>> >>> already 
>> >>> refers to multiple points in 3space. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Brent 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have 
>> >>> multiple 
>> >>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG 
>> >> 
>> >>  The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial 
>> >> coordinates. 
>> >> 
>> >>  Brent 
>> >> 
>> >>  OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG 
>> >> 
>> >>  So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity 
>> >> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the 
>> >> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the 
>> >> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross 
>> >> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the 
>> >> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote 
>> >> places. 
>> >> 
>> >>  Brent 
>> > 
>> > That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
>> > wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
>> > particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
>> > created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
>> > ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
>> > then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
>> > entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
>> > ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
>> > particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
>> > entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
>> > Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at 
>> > all. 
>>
>> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike 
>> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal 
>> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes 
> instantaneous collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's 
> inequality is, or must be violated?  AG 
>

OR, are you saying that the violation of Bell's inequality PROVES that 
collapse exists and is instantaneous? AG 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 9:07:37 PM UTC, smitra wrote:
>
> On 21-04-2018 21:44, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
>  One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact 
> >> that 
>  the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. 
> >> So, in 
>  any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
> >> only 
>  the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
> >>> 
> >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
> >>> already refers to multiple points in 3space. 
> >>> 
> >>> Brent 
> >> 
> >> Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects. 
> >> 
> >> Saibal 
> > 
> > Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the singlet 
> > system doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that 
> > establish non locality. AG 
>
>
> What the Bell statistics prove is that any hidden variable theory that 
> would explain why in an experiment we obtain one result rather than one 
> of the other possible results, would necessarily have to be a non-local 
> theory. 


But wouldn't a non local theory also have the detraction of implying
instantaneous action at a distance?  AG

This means that if we reject non-local theories, we have to 
> reject any hidden variable theory. 
>
> While one considers the special case of entangled particles to get this 
> result, the conclusion is, of course, valid in general: If there were a 
> hidden variable theory underlying QM, it would have to fully reproduce 
> QM and one can then show using the special case of entangled particles 
> that the actual dynamics of the hidden variable theory must be 
> non-local. 
>
> But as long as we stay away from any hypothetical hidden variable theory 
> (there isn't a shred of evidence for such theories) any non-locality 
> associated with such theories is totally irrelevant. 
>
> Saibal 
>
>
> >  -- 
> >  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > [1]. 
> >  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]. 
> > 
> > 
> > Links: 
> > -- 
> > [1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already
refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent

I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have
multiple
points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG


 The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial
coordinates.

 Brent

 OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG

 So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all 
the

details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at 
remote

places.

 Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at 
all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables 
theory.


Saibal

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 00:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 9:07:37 PM UTC, smitra wrote:


On 21-04-2018 21:44, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote:


On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is

local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows

from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it



already refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent


Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects.

Saibal


Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the

singlet

system doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that
establish non locality. AG


What the Bell statistics prove is that any hidden variable theory
that
would explain why in an experiment we obtain one result rather than
one
of the other possible results, would necessarily have to be a
non-local
theory. This means that if we reject non-local theories, we have to
reject any hidden variable theory.

While one considers the special case of entangled particles to get
this
result, the conclusion is, of course, valid in general: If there
were a
hidden variable theory underlying QM, it would have to fully
reproduce
QM and one can then show using the special case of entangled
particles
that the actual dynamics of the hidden variable theory must be
non-local.

But as long as we stay away from any hypothetical hidden variable
theory
(there isn't a shred of evidence for such theories) any non-locality

associated with such theories is totally irrelevant.

Saibal


I really don't understand your comments, which doesn't mean they're
wrong. I will try again. However, I do think that since collapse is
presumed to be instantaneous, it seems to imply non locality. Aren't
we assuming collapse in the analysis of the singlet state? If so, non
locality is baked in the pie, so to speak. AG


Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI there is 
no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in the MWI either, 
it's only an effective splitting that can be interpreted as an effective 
collapse as observed in the various effective worlds. In the MWI there 
really exists only one world that's described by a universal 
wavefunction that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. There 
is no non-locality at this fundamental level.


Saibal

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 22-04-2018 01:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 9:07:37 PM UTC, smitra wrote:


On 21-04-2018 21:44, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote:


On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is

local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows

from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it



already refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent


Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects.

Saibal


Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the

singlet

system doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that
establish non locality. AG


What the Bell statistics prove is that any hidden variable theory
that
would explain why in an experiment we obtain one result rather than
one
of the other possible results, would necessarily have to be a
non-local
theory.


But wouldn't a non local theory also have the detraction of implying
instantaneous action at a distance?  AG


Yes, so e.g. Bohm theory is a hidden variable theory but it's non-local 
and that then leads to trouble, e.g. it becomes possible to send signals 
faster than the speed of light:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium

"Valentini showed that his expansion of the De Broglie–Bohm theory would 
allow “signal nonlocality” for non-equilibrium cases in which 
\rho(x,y,z,t) ≠|\psi(x,y,z,t)|^2,[3][4] thereby violating the assumption 
that signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light."


Saibal





This means that if we reject non-local theories, we have to
reject any hidden variable theory.

While one considers the special case of entangled particles to get
this
result, the conclusion is, of course, valid in general: If there
were a
hidden variable theory underlying QM, it would have to fully
reproduce
QM and one can then show using the special case of entangled
particles
that the actual dynamics of the hidden variable theory must be
non-local.

But as long as we stay away from any hypothetical hidden variable
theory
(there isn't a shred of evidence for such theories) any non-locality

associated with such theories is totally irrelevant.

Saibal


--
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

https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list [1]

[1].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]

[2].



Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list [1]
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2]


 --
 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:
Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI there 
is no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in the MWI 
either, it's only an effective splitting that can be interpreted as an 
effective collapse as observed in the various effective worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike separated from it.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 9:45 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 06:08, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 8:39 PM, smitra wrote:

On 22-04-2018 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 4:45 PM, smitra wrote:
Yes, collapse does imply non-locality, but note that in the MWI 
there is no collapse. There is no real "splitting of Worlds" in 
the MWI either, it's only an effective splitting that can be 
interpreted as an effective collapse as observed in the various 
effective worlds.


And that observation is predicted by events spacelike separated 
from it.


Brent


And that ability for Alice to predict what Bob will find, poses a 
problem for single world collapse theories. Only there does new 
information appear after a measurement and that then happens in a 
non-local way when making certain measurements on entangled pairs of 
particles.


There are only four cases without collapse and in every case Alice can
predict Bob's result.  The very fact, which you have brought up, that
any hidden variable theory that explains the results must be non-local
(like Bohmian QM) shows that effect is non-local.

Brent


In case of a collapse theory, the non-local effect is far more 
problematic. Alice then finds a result at her place and because there 
is no other copy of her who found the other result, new information 
has appeared. And that means that Bob's result is now also well 
defined but the information about his measurement exists at a 
space-like separation. In the MWI Bob may know that Alice has already 
made her measurement, but he would also know that Alice exists as a 
superposition of two copies who will have found two different results, 
so there exists no information about what he is about to find later 
when he will measure his spin at the distant location where Alice is 
as that entire place is in a superposition.


But he will find himself in one of only two states, correlated with the 
two Alices.  The other two of the four possibilities are verboten, a 
non-local effect since they are zeroed even at spacelike interval.


Brent



Saibal




--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:
One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact that 
the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. So, in 
any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from only 
the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent


Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects.

Saibal

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:



theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,


No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
"theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
From
Wikipedia:

Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...


Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.

Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control.


Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
religions are developed as instruments of social control.

You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
Science can help
relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
distilled wisdom of our ancestors.


Originally they
were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".


The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
believes that people should be geographically organized according to
the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
social construct.


And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free 
press.  So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is 
just to choose sides?





Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.


Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica of
Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".

You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.


A religious myth is only useful in providing comfort, meaning, and order 
if most people subscribe to it.





As Seneca the
younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
  by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."


A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...


Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a sin
worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.

Yes.


But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.

He is pretty upfront about that.


No he's not.  He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's original
"true" meaning.

Yes, he states that the 

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Telmo Menezes]

[I messed up and sent the unfinished email. Here's the rest...]

On 21 April 2018 at 23:10, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> On 21 April 2018 at 16:44, John Clark  wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
 >
 >
 And Turing explained exactly precisely how to make one of his machines in
 the real physical world
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> Nope. Turing machines have infinite tapes.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Turing machines don’t need infinite tape, they need sufficient tape,
>> if you start to run out of tape then add more,

And for the general case there will be instances where you always need more.

>>  but after any finite number
>> of operations only a finite amount of tape is needed.
>> And with calculating
>> something like the Busy Beaver number only those machines that halt after a
>> finite number of operations count,

Non-Turing universal machines can perform some computations. Even
useful ones, for sure.

>> in fact in ANY successful calculation the
>> machine will eventually halt.
>

while(true) {
if (temperature < 21) {
heater = true;
}
else {
heater = false;
}
}

>> Yes some machines will never halt (like the
>> Turing Machine programed to find the 7918th Busy Beaver number) and so you
>> will keep adding tape forever, but that is the very definition of
>> non-computability. But even in that case at any given time the machine only
>> has or needs a finite amount of tape.

The non-computability of the Entscheidungsproblem is about the
impossibility of having a computation that will tell you in finite
time if an arbitrary other computation will ever stop or not.
Computations realized in the physical world will always stop, because
of physical limitations. If you apply to Turing the same demands that
you apply to Bruno, you can only conclude that Turing was a moron for
working on mathematical models that correspond to machines that cannot
exist. In fact, for you the Turing Machine is not a machine because it
cannot be physically realized.

>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> They were proposed by Turing as an
>>> *abstract* model of computation,
>>> and he was upfront about it.
>>
>>
>> Turing never claimed there were not far more complicated ways for an
>> engineer to make a computer, ways that worked faster and were far more
>> practical but were more difficult to understand. But he did show that any
>> computer could be reduced to his very simple machine, and people have
>> actually built real physical machines that work exactly as Turing said they
>> would.

These machines are finite approximations of the machine that Turing
defined, and which is not a machine according to your criterion
because it cannot be built.

>> When Bruno does more than just write mathematical symbols on a piece
>> of paper and makes a working physical model of a "Löbian machine " (and I
>> don't care if its ridiculously slow and impractical ) I'll retract
>> everything I said and place Bruno’s name next to Turing’s on my list of
>> greats. All I want is to see a working model of a physical "Löbian machine "
>> that is the equivalent to this model Turing Machine:

This is not a working model of the Turing Machine, it is a finite
approximation. It's cute, but it adds nothing to Turing's results. As
Russell said, an approximation of the Löbian machine can probably be
derived from Bruno's post in Prolog. He provided a Lisp implementation
of the Universal Dovetailer. It's an interesting exercise, but so
what?

>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> You're a bully.
>>
>> And you are a delicate snowflake who can't handle scientific criticism, and
>> a fool too if you think Bruno has said anything profound.

Maybe I am a delicate snowflake, but that is besides the point. I am
not complaining about scientific criticism, I am complaining about
personal insults. For example, in the sentence above you insult both
me and Bruno without providing anything of substance. The last time
Bruno pointed this out to you, you used the classical bully technique
of making fun of his mode of expression with "ad hominem". Throughout
the years you never tire of insulting people who remain polite when
talking to you. Maybe you will really require some extra centuries of
artificial life extension to learn some basic kindness.

I think you make a basic logic mistake. It is true that some brilliant
people are assholes, but being an asshole does not make you brilliant.

Telmo.

>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> *> Religions play a multitude of roles. For example to relieve suffering*

With the exception of death itself religion has caused more misery in the
world than anything in human history.

> *>  and provide meaning.*

Religion tells us that the meaning of our existence is to flatter God, it
does not say what the meaning of God's existence is.

> *> Science can help relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve
> existential angst*

Sure it can, you just need the right chemicals.

> *> I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you
> understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. quots*

I don’t know if you said that or Bruno or somebody else, the endless sea of
quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes seen on this list has stumped me, but
only somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but not the English word
“God” would like that definition. I like Mark Twain’s definition of faith:

“*Faith is believing what you know ain't so.*”

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 20-04-2018 02:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA 


One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact that
the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.


 That is false. The dynamics in the Schrödinger equation are given by
the Hamiltonian. And there is absolutely no reason why the Hamiltonian
should describe only local dynamics. It is easy to construct non-local
Hamiltonians.


No, this is not's not false, because we know that the Hamiltonian does 
in fact only include local interactions and there are good theoretical 
reasons why this should be the case.



So, in any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows
from only the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local
effects other than due to common cause effects. Then suppose that in
an example where things are simplified to allow for Alice and Bob
thought experiments to be discussed without having to rigorously
show how Alice, Bob and the experimental apparatus used are to be
extracted from the wavefunction one does see non-local effects, then
it follows that these non-local effects are artifacts of these
simplifications.


 That does not follow at all. You forget that in addition to the
possibility of non-local dynamics, the wave-function for many-particle
systems is defined in configuration space, and things that are local
in configuration space can easily be non-local in ordinary 3d space.
And we live in 3D space, so have to live with non-local effects.
Common cause explanations do not work for space-like separations.



As long as the dynamics is local and unitary, you won't get any 
non-local effects  other than via common cause effects. That "we live in 
a 3d space" is only true in an effective sense, in principle everything 
lives in a Hilbert space.



Now, in standard quantum mechanics one does routinely make such
simplifying assumptions, this allows for QM to be useful as a
practical theory, but we then also know that strictly speaking, it's
not how Nature really works.


 How do you know how Nature really works? We observe correlations in
Bell-type measurements. These indicate non-local effects in the world.
Going to another world does not actually help you, because we are
stuck in 3D reality.


To prove that one cannot get rid of non-local effects (i.e. explain that 
in terms of common cause effects), you can't just show that non-local 
effects remain present in an effective theory where one pretends that 
the effective world observers find themselves in, is fundamental.


Saibal


 Bruce

 --
 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote:
>
> On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> > On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
> >> One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact that 
> >> the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. So, in 
> >> any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from only 
> >> the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
> > 
> > The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
> > already refers to multiple points in 3space. 
> > 
> > Brent 
>
> Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects. 
>
> Saibal 
>

Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the singlet system 
doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that establish non 
locality. AG

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 21-04-2018 21:44, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:12:48 PM UTC-4, smitra wrote:


On 20-04-2018 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent


Yes, but that doesn't yield any non-local effects.

Saibal


Why would you think it would, or should? Even the wf for the singlet
system doesn't do that on its face. It's the Bell statistics that
establish non locality. AG



What the Bell statistics prove is that any hidden variable theory that 
would explain why in an experiment we obtain one result rather than one 
of the other possible results, would necessarily have to be a non-local 
theory. This means that if we reject non-local theories, we have to 
reject any hidden variable theory.


While one considers the special case of entangled particles to get this 
result, the conclusion is, of course, valid in general: If there were a 
hidden variable theory underlying QM, it would have to fully reproduce 
QM and one can then show using the special case of entangled particles 
that the actual dynamics of the hidden variable theory must be 
non-local.


But as long as we stay away from any hypothetical hidden variable theory 
(there isn't a shred of evidence for such theories) any non-locality 
associated with such theories is totally irrelevant.


Saibal



 --
 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote:

One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact

that

the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local.

So, in

any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from

only

the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects


The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it
already
refers to multiple points in 3space.

Brent

I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have
multiple
points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG


 The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial
coordinates.

 Brent

 OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG

 So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
places.

 Brent


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled 
state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob 
at far away locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at 
their locations. The way the state vectors of the entire system that now 
also includes the state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has 
no nontrivial non-local effects in them at all.


Saibal



 --
 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Telmo Menezes]

On 21 April 2018 at 16:44, John Clark  wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> And Turing explained exactly precisely how to make one of his machines in
>>> the real physical world
>>
>>
>> >
>> Nope. Turing machines have infinite tapes.
>
>
> Nope. Turing machines don’t need infinite tape, they need sufficient tape,
> if you start to run out of tape then add more,

And for the general case there will be instances where you always need more.

>  but after any finite number
> of operations only a finite amount of tape is needed.
> And with calculating
> something like the Busy Beaver number only those machines that halt after a
> finite number of operations count,

Non-Turing universal machines can perform some computations. Even
useful ones, for sure.

> in fact in ANY successful calculation the
> machine will eventually halt.

while(true) {
 if (temperature < 21) {
}
}

> Yes some machines will never halt (like the
> Turing Machine programed to find the 7918th Busy Beaver number) and so you
> will keep adding tape forever, but that is the very definition of
> non-computability. But even in that case at any given time the machine only
> has or needs a finite amount of tape.

The non-computability of the Entscheidungsproblem is about the
impossibility of having a computation that will tell you in finite
time if an arbitrary other computation will ever stop or not.
Computations realized in the physical world will always stop, because
of physical limitations. If you apply to Turing the same demands that
you apply to Bruno, you can only conclude that Turing was a moron for
working on mathematical models that correspond to machines that cannot
exist. In fact, for you the Turing Machine is not a machine because it
cannot be physically realized.

>
>>
>> >
>> They were proposed by Turing as an
>> *abstract* model of computation,
>> and he was upfront about it.
>
>
> Turing never claimed there were not far more complicated ways for an
> engineer to make a computer, ways that worked faster and were far more
> practical but were more difficult to understand. But he did show that any
> computer could be reduced to his very simple machine, and people have
> actually built real physical machines that work exactly as Turing said they
> would.

These machines are finite approximations of the machine that Turing
defined, and which is not a machine according to your criterium
because it cannot be built.

> When Bruno does more than just write mathematical symbols on a piece
> of paper and makes a working physical model of a "Löbian machine " (and I
> don't care if its ridiculously slow and impractical ) I'll retract
> everything I said and place Bruno’s name next to Turing’s on my list of
> greats. All I want is to see a working model of a physical "Löbian machine "
> that is the equivalent to this model Turing Machine:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
>
>
>> >
>> You're a bully.
>
> And you are a delicate snowflake who can't handle scientific criticism, and
> a fool too if you think Bruno has said anything profound.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.