Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds" -Nicolas Gisin http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something about all possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. Hence Nature is nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief review of some recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the existence of free will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Recently there was discussion on this list about this question Love and free will http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/8ab31552cd18561c Some citations you will find in my blog http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/04/love-and-free-will.html You might be interested in Rex's Intelligence and Nomologicalism http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/t/5ab5303cdb696ef5 On 16.05.2011 16:49 selva said the following: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
On 5/16/2011 7:49 AM, selva wrote: Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? See Daniel Dennett's book "Elbow Room" for a good exposition of compatibilist free will. why is there binary state at all ? I don't understand that question? Computers use binary representations because it physically more efficient, although there have been computers that used base three, and of course analog computers. if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? That depends on what you mean by free will and whether you think the world is deterministic. By "affects" do you mean "determines" or could it mean "change the probability of"? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? Probability is a mathematical model. It can be used to model events where we are ignorant of the causes, although we assume they exist. That's how it was invented, by game players. But it isn't necessary to assume there are unknown causes. The same model then describes inherent randomness. If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? No. Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? I have no reason to believe the premise of that question. Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? It's convenient model of measurement in quantum mechanics to avoid the question of why measurements need to be described by a physical process (projection) different from all other physical processes (unitary evolution by the Hamiltonian). Whether such worlds are "real" is controversial. everything affects everything or not ? In physics, things can only affect events in their future light cone and events are only affected by events in their past light cone. There are some theories, such as Bohm's quantum mechanics, which violate this rule, but none that are accepted. P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. Brent "Why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is unstable" --- Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate 2004 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: FREE WILL--is it really free?
Hi selva, We are actively exploring exactly those kinds of questions. Please feel free to jump in, the water is warm. ;-) Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: selva Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:49 AM To: Everything List Subject: FREE WILL--is it really free? Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Dear Brent,
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
> On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > [SPK]
> >I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
> > that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
> > your example, I think...
> >
> >I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy
> > of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a
> > separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So
> > how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed
> > that term) of one OM get related to that of another?
> >
> > Onward!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as
> computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the
> digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in
> Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences).
>
> The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and
> discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some
> internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable
> theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small
> amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily
> include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also
> difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted
> for in this theory.
>
> Brent
--
It could be that Stathis' theory is using the notion of atomicity that is
used in logics relating to formulas. It relates to the original Greek notion of
an atom as "indivisible". Atomic logics can be considered as such that to add
or subtract some part of them (prepositions and/or relations) would make them
collapse. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_formula and in a wider
context here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic . I would like to
see more of Stathis’ ideas.
I am sanguine toward this idea as it would apply to OMs in the sense of
inducing the stratifications that we see in terms of Bruno’s “substitution
level” for a wider notion of machines – not just humans - and Russell’s idea
that an OM has a minimum quantity of chance involved, like a result of constant
of action of sorts. The Yes Doctor thesis of digital substitution would apply
to planetary and even galactic sized sentient entities if it applies to amoeba
and humans! (I only worry that Bruno is too easily dismissing the implications
of quantum entanglement and the canonical conjugacy of observables.)
Complete atomic Boolean algebras are part of these explorations. For
instance see:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/RepresentingACompleteAtomicBooleanAlgebraByPowerSet.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebras_canonically_defined . I am
interested in more general logics (where the truth values can range over the
complex numbers instead of just those that have binary ({0,1} valuations) and
their topological Stone duals and considerations of if and how they can be
considered as dynamic (instead of just static a priori given structures). Thus
my questions about how OMs are sequenced. It is part of the idea that I am
exploring using the Stone duality (similar to line discussed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_sets ) to rehabilitate Cartesian dualism
as first proposed by Vaughan Pratt since it has become obvious to me that
monist ontologies have severe problems.
It could be that considerations of OMs as defined in terms of equivalence
classes of computational sequences or as atomic formulas or algebras are
consistent with each other, just different semantical methods of addressing the
same idea. We run into difficulties in these discussion because we can easily
mix metaphors when translating between technical discussions of the formal
mathematics and our personal folk theologies about our experiences and
interpretations of the mathematics. I am often guilty of this metaphor mixing
and appreciate error correction when needed. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
FREE WILL--is it really free?
Considering only our world in the many world interpretation,it is a separate causal domain.. there is no domain shear between the different domains(different parallel worlds)..i.e.there is decoherence.. It is known that in our causal domain,there is cause and effect relationships.. everything is happening because of a cause..everything is as it is because it ought to be such. There is a grand flow in the varying positions of atoms constituting the universe.. If this is right,then how can we say ,we have free will ? why is there binary state at all ? if there is free will,how can we say everything affects everything ? why is the 50-50 probability arises ? why is there probability functions at all ? If the positions of the atoms in my mind(my thoughts) now affect the positions of the atoms in your brain(your thoughts) ,then does it mean you don't have a free will ? Is our consciousness part of the grand consciousness (the universe). Are we like the white cells(individually conscious) in our body,to the universe..? Then above all,the real question is why is there parallel worlds at all ? everything affects everything or not ? P.S : i am just a student and i don't have real technical knowledge in all these fields..i am just curious..what is these universe and why does it exists at all.. so please bear with my ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
TIME warp
hi everyone, can someone explain me what a time warp is ? or why there is a time warp ? well yes,it is due to the curvature of the space-time graph near a heavy mass. but how does it points to the center of the mass,how does it finds it.. and explanation at atomic level plz.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? Onward! Stephen I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences). The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 16 May 2011, at 16:13, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Stathis, -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent and Everything List Members, Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is disallowed by the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will concede that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation of the observables (or, in the state vector formalism, the amplitudes) nor the hermiticity will generate a natural or well ordering that can be used to induced an a priori sequencing of the OMs, but I would like to see an argument that it does. Is there one? The paper by Ischam argues that there is not... I see this problem of OM sequencing as separate from the ideas about clocks since clocks are a classical concept that depends, in a QM universe, on decoherence or something similar to overcome the effects of the HUP on its hands. Onward! Stephen The subjective sequencing is independent of any real world sequence that might occur. Today is Monday and I recall that yesterday was Sunday. I assume that my brain generated Sunday's subjective experiences first and then used them to generate Monday's. But this need not necessarily be the case: it could be that that Sunday was generated a century ago in real time, or not generated at all, and my memories of it are false ones. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? For the 3-OM, some universal number. For the 1-OMs, infinities of universal numbers (the one running the computation below your substitution level). The "initial time" is given by the succession of the natural numbers, like in the UD. I am curious to know if Stathis and others agree with this, or at least see what I mean. It is always enlightening to imagine yourself in a (concrete) universe with a UD running in it, then a mere understanding that the number relations does execute (not just describe) the UD can help to understand how all "OMs" organize themselves, so that with OCCAM we don't need to postulate an initial concrete universe. The movie graph shows that not only we don't need it, but even if that would exist, we just cannot use it to "singularize" consciousness. OK? Bruno Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 16 May 2011, at 15:08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent and Everything List Members, Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is disallowed by the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will concede that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation of the observables (or, in the state vector formalism, the amplitudes) nor the hermiticity will generate a natural or well ordering that can be used to induced an a priori sequencing of the OMs, but I would like to see an argument that it does. Is there one? The paper by Ischam argues that there is not... I see this problem of OM sequencing as separate from the ideas about clocks since clocks are a classical concept that depends, in a QM universe, on decoherence or something similar to overcome the effects of the HUP on its hands. Onward! Stephen The subjective sequencing is independent of any real world sequence that might occur. Yes. It is even independent of the nature (physically "real", virtual, or arithmetical) nature of that sequence. Today is Monday and I recall that yesterday was Sunday. I assume that my brain generated Sunday's subjective experiences first and then used them to generate Monday's. But this need not necessarily be the case: it could be that that Sunday was generated a century ago in real time, or not generated at all, and my memories of it are false ones. You are right. Now, in concreto, all such sequences of (3-OM) states exist in a tiny part of arithmetic. They are still sequences, and not isolated states, by virtue of being linking by universal numbers (if not, the notion of computation would have no meaning at all). This justifies that if we are machine, at some level of description, the laws of nature are given by a relative statistic on all computations existing in that tiny part of arithmetic, precisely by all the competing universal numbers linking those 3-OMs. Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Stathis, -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent and Everything List Members, Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is disallowed by the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will concede that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation of the observables (or, in the state vector formalism, the amplitudes) nor the hermiticity will generate a natural or well ordering that can be used to induced an a priori sequencing of the OMs, but I would like to see an argument that it does. Is there one? The paper by Ischam argues that there is not... I see this problem of OM sequencing as separate from the ideas about clocks since clocks are a classical concept that depends, in a QM universe, on decoherence or something similar to overcome the effects of the HUP on its hands. Onward! Stephen The subjective sequencing is independent of any real world sequence that might occur. Today is Monday and I recall that yesterday was Sunday. I assume that my brain generated Sunday's subjective experiences first and then used them to generate Monday's. But this need not necessarily be the case: it could be that that Sunday was generated a century ago in real time, or not generated at all, and my memories of it are false ones. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi Brent and Everything List Members, > > Let me start over and focus on the sequencing of OMs. I argue that the > Schrodinger Equation does not work to generate a sequencing of Observer > moments for multiple interacting observers because it assumes a physically > unreal notion of time, the Newtonian Absolute time which is disallowed by > the experimentally verified theory of general relativity. I will concede > that I might be mistaken in my claim that the complex valuation of the > observables (or, in the state vector formalism, the amplitudes) nor the > hermiticity will generate a natural or well ordering that can be used to > induced an a priori sequencing of the OMs, but I would like to see an > argument that it does. Is there one? The paper by Ischam argues that there > is not... > I see this problem of OM sequencing as separate from the ideas about > clocks since clocks are a classical concept that depends, in a QM universe, > on decoherence or something similar to overcome the effects of the HUP on > its hands. > > Onward! > > Stephen The subjective sequencing is independent of any real world sequence that might occur. Today is Monday and I recall that yesterday was Sunday. I assume that my brain generated Sunday's subjective experiences first and then used them to generate Monday's. But this need not necessarily be the case: it could be that that Sunday was generated a century ago in real time, or not generated at all, and my memories of it are false ones. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
