Re: Climate change
On 03 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/3/2012 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So our existence at the current level is bad' and we are to revert back to some primitive non-tech version and be happy. OK. Proceed there without me. I am not interested in telling you how to live your life, just respect my basic human rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. The climate alarmist are busy inventing new reasons that I cannot have even these and you seem to be OK with that! Why? I am interested in advancing technology and understanding such that, maybe, this constant panic and obsessive compulsive need to control everything is mitigated. Why can't people just be happy and live their lives w/o having to constantly invent good reasons to get into everyone's business??? IMHO, all this climate change stuff is just a reharsh of Malthusian thinking and the very idea of criminalizing disenting opinions, well... What a wonderful way to impose tyranny! You might be right, I am not sure. Then, the fear sellers did not need the climate change for imposing tyranny: food and drug works already very well. (Cf Obama and the NDAA). And they might be related, as Henry Ford said already in before 1930, --why use petrol and steel for doing car, when we can build them entirely using Hemp, which can be renewed each year?. The possible climate change might be a consequence of the lies on paper, steel, medication, oil, etc. The deeper problem might be education, which get worst more or less since Nixon, almost everywhere. People are not encouraged to think by themselves. they still need leader, hero, etc. It is old social mammal genes in play. We are apes with atomic bomb, which confuse p - q and q - p, all the time. As long as cannabis is illegal, you can be sure that politics is biased in the favor of lying minorities. Corporatist club are NOT person, contrary to what Romney said recently. We should implement differently politics, so that we can separate it from special interests. Not an easy task. May be we should vote for programs, and politicians should be anonymous citizen doing some social service for a fixed period. Something like that. Bruno Dear Bruno, FYI: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602160845.htm 15 people is not a serious sample, and then, to make it illegal you have to compare with the long-term effect of other activities (alcohol, breathing air in cities, tobacco, chocolate, aspirin, etc.) To get the stat meaningful you have to study large population of cannabis smokers. And that has been done, and the effect are more positive than negative, unless cannabis is consumed with alcohol or tobacco. 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: Climate change
Dear Bruno, FYI: http://www.sciencedaily.com/**releases/2008/06/080602160845.**htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602160845.htm 15 people is not a serious sample, and then, to make it illegal you have to compare with the long-term effect of other activities (alcohol, breathing air in cities, tobacco, chocolate, aspirin, etc.) To get the stat meaningful you have to study large population of cannabis smokers. And that has been done, and the effect are more positive than negative, unless cannabis is consumed with alcohol or tobacco. Also the study deals with heavy cannabis users (Fifteen carefully selected long-term (10 years) and heavy (5 joints daily) cannabis-using men). It is extremely common for the response to drugs to be positive up to a certain dose and become negative after a threshold. This is even true of many nutritional building blocks. One could probably draw similar conclusions if heavy vitamin D users were studied. Epidemiological studies are the lowest form of science. Sometimes they are the best we can do, but drawing generic conclusions about the effects of a drug from an epidemiological study with population sizes of 15 and with extreme dosages is a bit crazy. -- 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: Against Mechanism
On 03 Dec 2012, at 17:10, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Did you mean I saw W or M, which is indeed confirmed by the two
copies? Or I saw W or I saw M, which again is confirmed by the two
copies?
I meant that a observer who did not want to play games and honestly
wanted to convey the maximum amount of information would NOT say
from a first person view I saw W or M. And I meant that me would
say I saw M AND me would say I saw W.
This is not relevant. The question is about confirming a prediction
made before the duplication. If the h-guy predict I don't know but it
has to be W or M, and certainly not both, then that prediction, which
is contained in the memory of both the M guy and the W man, both
confirmed the W or M prediction, and both refutes the W and M
prediction.
They are both me in the 3-view
And so obviously they are both me in the 1-view.
In the 3-view? Yes.
In each of the 1-views? No. Unless magic, telepathy, etc.
and only one of them can be me in the 1-view.
Me disagrees with Bruno Marchal about that, Bruno Marchal should
just ask me and that will prove that John Clark was correct.
?
and don't give me this first party third party crap, ANYBODY that
exists after that button is pushed sees BOTH of them as Bruno
Marchal from the first, second third or any other point of view you
care to name.
No
YES!!
OK. Both sees itself as BM, but in an exclusive way, so that they
could not have predicted in advance which particular city they would
have find themselves in.
the one in W does not see the one in M as being himself in the
first person sense
If they are identical the one in W does not even know if he's in W
or M, and the same is true of the one in M.
So when the W-man look around and see W, he does not know it is W?
Then when I look at a particle in x + z spin, in the {x, y} base, I
cannnot know what I see, and physics stop to make any prediction.
he just agree that the other is as much the H-man s himself
Yes.
but now they have differentiated.
Yes but not at the instant of duplication, at the instant one sees
something the other does not.
?
Only in the 3-sense [...]
Only in the 3-sense? ONLY?! I repeat my request yet again, without
invoking the supernatural please give a example of 2 beings
identical from the 3p but not from the 1p.
You keep asking me that. It is impossible, but the prediction is about
what WILL happen, after the differentiation.
If 2 things are me in the 3p then unless there are mystical
supernatural entities at work they are certainly identical in the 1p
Not at all,
This gets to the very heart of the matter and I could not disagree
with you more. If correct why can't a example be provided?
When you drink vodka in Moscow, and drink whisky in Washington. You
are still the same H-man (we have agree on this) but yet have
different 1p view, as vodka taste differently than whisky.
Other example I am the same guy now, as I was this morning when
teaching math. But my 1p now is quite different than from this morning.
You should not conflate being the same person with being the same 3p
body or same 1p mind. It is typical for the same person to change its
mind.
they are both me in the comp sense.
Then what are we arguing about?
About the different experience, and the evanuation to live that
experience in some experiment.
We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man can pretend
rightly that they are the H-man,
Yes.
but their first person view have differentiated
Only when one sees something the other does not, as long as they
stay in those identical boxes they have not differentiated no matter
how far apart the boxes are and there is only one conscious being.
We have agreed on this a tun of times. But the question asked to the H-
man is about its chance to get M, the Moscow 1p experience.
They feel different.
If they have different memories of what happened after the
duplication then yes, otherwise no.
Sure.
you can't use Leibniz rule for identity.
I duplicate you. You and your identical copy are in 2 identical
sealed boxes. I instantaneously exchange the position of of you and
the copy. A third person cannot tell that anything has happened. You
can not tell that anything has happened. The copy can not tell that
anything has happened. So unless you can find a difference that is
neither objective nor subjective then there is no difference between
you and the copy.
But we have agreed that even after opening the box, and differentiated
they are the same man, obviously in different state. They got 3p
difference, and the question, to the H-man, is about their 1p view
after the differentiation.
You try hard to avoid the question asked.
and if Bruno Marchal can dream up some other pee they're
identical from that
Re: Climate change
On 03 Dec 2012, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2012 4:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You might be right, I am not sure. Then, the fear sellers did not need the climate change for imposing tyranny: food and drug works already very well. (Cf Obama and the NDAA). And they might be related, as Henry Ford said already in before 1930, --why use petrol and steel for doing car, when we can build them entirely using Hemp, which can be renewed each year?. The possible climate change might be a consequence of the lies on paper, steel, medication, oil, etc. The deeper problem might be education, which get worst more or less since Nixon, almost everywhere. People are not encouraged to think by themselves. they still need leader, hero, etc. It is old social mammal genes in play. We are apes with atomic bomb, which confuse p - q and q - p, all the time. As long as cannabis is illegal, you can be sure that politics is biased in the favor of lying minorities. So do you conclude from the recent legalization of Marijuana in three U.S. states and even it's commercial production in Colorado that the bias has shifted? The UN has asked Obama to quickly solve that problem. The bias has no changed at the feds level, nor at the international mafia level. But the cops of LEAP do a good work, and some hope is reasonable. But the financial interest of powerful (financially) minorities will remain quite string for a long time. What seems correct is that more and more educated people begin to understand that about cannabis, there has only been lies and unfair speculation. The scientists expert on cannabis, rare in America due to the schedule 1 constraints (forbidding to do research on it) are unanimous that cannabis is a million times safer than alcohol, tobacco, aspirin, chocolate, city air, etc. Also, it is clearer and clearer that prohibition always augment the production and consumption of drug. In The Netherlands where cannabis is decriminalized completely, the young people does not smoke cannabis, as it looks like too clear that they want to look like an adult, and it is not well seen. Kids have a much higher probability to use an illegal drug than a legal drug, because when a drug is made illegal, the market is offered to unscrupulous people who will not ask the ID to the buyer. Bruno Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded -Abraham Lincoln 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: Semantic vs logical truth
On 03 Dec 2012, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2. Yes, I understand that. I didn't express myself clearly. p is a 0- level statement. That p (i.e. that p is true, that p describes a fact) is a 1-level statement. p is that p. When the machine asserts 1+1=2, she meant that it is the case that 1+1=2, independently of the truth or falsity of the assertion. But we mimit ourself to correct machine, so in this case p and p is true are equivalent, and so we can model True(p), which is not expressible in the language of the machine, by p (asserted by the machine). That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. Then Mars Rover is not Löbian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is Turing universal, or that it exploits its Turing universality. Well not the current Mars Rover, but a Mars Rover could be, it's just a matter of program. So the Rover could not only encode p, also encode that it believed p. OK. But PA and ZF can represent I believe. So we can study the logic of a new 'knowledge operator defined (at the meta level, for each arithmetical proposition) by Bp p. For example if p is 1+1=2, it is Believe(1+1=2) 1+1 = 2. I don't understand the significance of the unpaired quote marks? read: Believe(1+1=2) 1+1 = 2 (Sorry). We cannot define such operator in arithmetic. We would need something like Believe(1+1=2) True(1+1 = 2), but True, in general cannot defined in arithmetic. Yet, we can metadefine it and study its logic, which obeys a soprt of temporal intuionistic logic (interpreting the S4Grz logic obtained). One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right? Not sure I see what you mean. The meta, available by the machine is in the I believe. It is the 3-I. The presentation of myself to myself. The 1-I will be the non definable operator above. We connect the believer to the truth. It is easy to do for the sound correct machine. What I mean is that if you programmed the Rover to be Lobian and it not only thought p but also though Bp, both of those would be just be similar physical states within its computer memory - their hierarchical relation would just be that encoded in the Lobian program. ? s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0)) is far more shorter than the coding of Beweisbar (s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0))) So a physical error in the computer could change Bp to ~Bp, yet this would have no effect on the performance of the Rover except in reporting what it believed. To survive, such self-referential falsity will not help. To do philosophy of mind, such false reports can be disastrous. But for the correct machine, by definition we don't have that problem. Bp p is strictly equivalent with Bp. Now the correct machine can never prove (for all p) such an equivalence. In fact by Löb theorem, if ever the machine proves Bp - p, she will always been able to prove p. G* proves ((Bp p) - Bp) G does not prove that. Indeed the machine can't prove Bf - f. Bruno 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: no thanks, doctor
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:39, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK, I think I may understand the issue of consciousness. Comp is what the brain does in the flesh, I see what you mean: the fleshy brain is supposed to do computation. But the wording is a bit loose. By definition comp is the belief that [the needed work done by the brain to make you consciousness present in our most probable environment] can be done by a computer. then consciousness is a product of what the brain does . Not really. That's the whole point. You can think like that in the begining of the reasoning, but in fine, despite it is highly counter-intuitive, the contrary happens to be the case. Brains, as material objects, do not exist. They are a product of consciousness coupled to deep and long computations. Don't take my word for it: this is really the conclusion of the reasoning. You must for that accept, if only for the sake of the argument, the definition of comp (which I call often step 0 on the list), then step 1, step 2 up to step 7 and/or 8 to see what I mean by the brain is a product of consciousness. Note that I did not say that the brain is the product of human consciousness: it is far more complex, and there are many open problem, but they are translated in pure math, and they lead to an infinity of experimental device description capable of testing comp. Comp is associated to the brain, but not to consciousness at least directly. It is really the contrary. Comp is a belief that consciousness is invariant for some physical changes: brain=computer, and it leads to the idea that matter emerge from consciousness, through the coherence (multi-consistence) of some numbers' dream (computation seen from inside, like with the 1p and 3p distinction). This is not well know, so you can take all your time and perhaps even find a flaw. Is that right ? Comp bet on a relation between brain and consciousness, but in fine it will explains the physical structure of the brain through a theory of consciousness, itself explains in term of number relation. But please: don't try to understand this intuitively without getting familiar with the UDA steps. It is really something that you have to understand logically to give meaning to it. Comp is counter-intuitive, provably so. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/25/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-25, 09:51:05 Subject: Re: no thanks, doctor On 24 Nov 2012, at 14:53, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK, I kept thinking that in comp, the computer calculations had to do everything. The phrasing is ambiguous. The computer calculations, or equivalently the (sigma_1) arithmetical relation makes only virtual physics, and virtual dreams of virtual physics, and the real physics is something emerging in the mind of those dreaming entities. Note that with comp, dreams obeys very strict mathematical laws. But you say that comp is not needed for consciousness to occur. But that is an assumption. I do not understand. Comp is just the hypothesis that the brain makes our consciousness manifestable in virtue of emulating some programs. One would need an additional assumption, that consciousness be the mediator in converting input physical sensory signals into nonphysical mental sensations such as hotness. In which theory? There is a sense that what you say is a consequence of comp. Obvioulsy if you say yes to the doctor, you believe that the brain-machine build by the doctor, from the scanning of your brain, will indeed interface correctly your first person consciousness to that machine and its environment. This is contained in the comp assumption, and this does not need to postulate a fundamental physical world, or a fundamental consciousness. At first it is better to be agnostic on this, so to see more easily if the reasoning is valid or not. And for consciousness to achieve the inverse output process, of converting a nonphysical mental intention into a nerve signal for action. And then, if you proceed step by step you will see that we don't have that problem, as the physical has no ontology at all. It does not exist per se. It is only dreamed by numbers. It emerges from the epistemology/theology of the numbers. Those assumptions are merely that-- assumptions. Comp is an assumption, and it is rather equivalent with what you say to paragraph above, but not with the one paragraph above. All theories *are* assumptions. Consciousness is the only thing which can be said not being an assumption (at least not a conscious one!), but it is not a theory, it is an experience. So thanks, doctor, but no thanks. Comp requires huge additional assumptions
Re: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. [...] The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased* Nope, you've got it exactly precisely backwards yet again. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment If the experimenters know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If they do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave when it is given an opportunity to interfere with itself. Or you don't like Wikipedia http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/quantum.html : * *when we don't know which slit the photons are going through, we get a wave interference pattern. When we do know which slit each photon traveled through, no interference pattern.* *Or maybe* you prefer this: *http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/* * One can set up a measurement to watch which slit a photon goes through. It can be determined that the photon went through one slit and not the other. However, once this is kind of measurement is set up, the photons will no longer collectively produce a nice pattern of bright and dark spots. Instead they will strike the screen in one big bright spot, as if there were only one slit instead of two. Or perhaps this: http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/the-most-beautiful-experiment/ If one neglects to observe which slit a photon passes through, it appears to interfere with itself, suggesting that it behaves as a wave by traveling through both slits at once. But, if one chooses to observe the slits, the interference pattern *disappears*, and each photon travels through only one of the slits. * *Actually you don't need other people to tell you this you can figure this out on your own; if you only have one slit then obviously you know which slit the photon went through and there is no interference pattern. But if you have 2 closely slits then you don't know which slit the photon went through and you get a interference pattern. John K Clark * * -- 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/4/2012 8:29 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. [...] The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased* Nope, you've got it exactly precisely backwards yet again. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment If the experimenters know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If they do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave when it is given an opportunity to interfere with itself. That's why you need to read the technical papers instead of Wikipedia. The above is correct when there are just photons going through one pair of slits. But in the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment there are *two* entangled photons one of which goes through slits and one of which *could be detected and give which-way information*. The point is that if it is not detected (flys off to infinity, absorbed in the wall,...) the interference pattern is still destroyed. To maintain the pattern the information in the entangled photon has to be *erased* - that's the function of the lens. Loss of the interference isn't because they do not know; it's a consequence of the information being out there - and being absorbed in a wall still leaves it out there. This is even clearer in the buckyball Young's slits experiment, quant-ph/0402146v1. The interference pattern is lost when the buckyballs are hot enough that their IR radiation is sufficient to localize them to the slit spacing - even though nobody ever observes or detects the IR photons. All those below fail to consider the relevant case too; they assume all cases in which no experimenter measures which-way are equivalent. They ignore the possibility that the environment may measure which-way but no person does. Brent Or you don't like Wikipedia http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/quantum.html: / /when we don't know which slit the photons are going through, we get a wave interference pattern. When we do know which slit each photon traveled through, no interference pattern./ /Or maybe/you prefer this: /http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/%7Eamarch// / One can set up a measurement to watch which slit a photon goes through. It can be determined that the photon went through one slit and not the other. However, once this is kind of measurement is set up, the photons will no longer collectively produce a nice pattern of bright and dark spots. Instead they will strike the screen in one big bright spot, as if there were only one slit instead of two. Or perhaps this: http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/the-most-beautiful-experiment/ If one neglects to observe which slit a photon passes through, it appears to interfere with itself, suggesting that it behaves as a wave by traveling through both slits at once. But, if one chooses to observe the slits, the interference pattern /disappears/, and each photon travels through only one of the slits. / /Actually you don't need other people to tell you this you can figure this out on your own; if you only have one slit then obviously you know which slit the photon went through and there is no interference pattern. But if you have 2 closely slits then you don't know which slit the photon went through and you get a interference pattern. Unless there is another photon that could have told you which slit, but which nobody observed and now has been destroyed. That's what started this thread: you remarked that destroying the particle was what permitted the interference pattern. John K Clark / / -- 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5435 - Release Date: 12/03/12 -- 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: Against Mechanism
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:51:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2012 8:29 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. [...] The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased* Nope, you've got it exactly precisely backwards yet again. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment If the experimenters know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If they do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave when it is given an opportunity to interfere with itself. That's why you need to read the technical papers instead of Wikipedia. The above is correct when there are just photons going through one pair of slits. But in the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment there are *two* entangled photons one of which goes through slits and one of which *could be detected and give which-way information*. The point is that if it is not detected (flys off to infinity, absorbed in the wall,...) the interference pattern is still destroyed. To maintain the pattern the information in the entangled photon has to be *erased* - that's the function of the lens. Loss of the interference isn't because they do not know; it's a consequence of the information being out there - and being absorbed in a wall still leaves it out there. This is even clearer in the buckyball Young's slits experiment, quant-ph/0402146v1. The interference pattern is lost when the buckyballs are hot enough that their IR radiation is sufficient to localize them to the slit spacing - even though nobody ever observes or detects the IR photons. All those below fail to consider the relevant case too; they assume all cases in which no experimenter measures which-way are equivalent. They ignore the possibility that the environment may measure which-way but no person does. Brent It's confusing. Can you simplify it? One photon heads toward the slits. One entangled photon heads toward the detector. (They are both entangled with each other, but I assume you mean one pair of entangled photons, not two pairs.) Is there a detector on the slits too? It seems like the point of the experiment is that the interference pattern only shows up when the ability to discern which-way is not available - which seems to me to support observer-principle type interpretations. Certainly I don't see any suggestion that there is a such thing as 'information' which is independent of some kind of sense receptivity. To the contrary: Time 6. Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 *depends entirely* on the information *gathered* later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment. The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 *will be at one place if we later learn* more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.-http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm I intentionally bolded the terms where the true nature of quantum is revealed - with the capacity to detect, 'learn', 'gather', i.e. to become informed through a sensory-motor event within the matter which makes up a physical instrument (including, but not limited to, human eyes, brains, etc). Physics is sensory-motor participation. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no such thing as 'information'. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/xEjC88-mcZ4J. 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/4/2012 11:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:51:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2012 8:29 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. [...] The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased* Nope, you've got it exactly precisely backwards yet again. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment If the experimenters know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If they do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave when it is given an opportunity to interfere with itself. That's why you need to read the technical papers instead of Wikipedia. The above is correct when there are just photons going through one pair of slits. But in the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment there are *two* entangled photons one of which goes through slits and one of which *could be detected and give which-way information*. The point is that if it is not detected (flys off to infinity, absorbed in the wall,...) the interference pattern is still destroyed. To maintain the pattern the information in the entangled photon has to be *erased* - that's the function of the lens. Loss of the interference isn't because they do not know; it's a consequence of the information being out there - and being absorbed in a wall still leaves it out there. This is even clearer in the buckyball Young's slits experiment, quant-ph/0402146v1. The interference pattern is lost when the buckyballs are hot enough that their IR radiation is sufficient to localize them to the slit spacing - even though nobody ever observes or detects the IR photons. All those below fail to consider the relevant case too; they assume all cases in which no experimenter measures which-way are equivalent. They ignore the possibility that the environment may measure which-way but no person does. Brent It's confusing. Can you simplify it? One photon heads toward the slits. One entangled photon heads toward the detector. (They are both entangled with each other, but I assume you mean one pair of entangled photons, not two pairs.) Is there a detector on the slits too? Yes. It seems like the point of the experiment is that the interference pattern only shows up when the ability to discern which-way is not available - which seems to me to support observer-principle type interpretations. Kinda depends on what you mean by 'available'. If the entangled photon is allowed to hit a wall and be absorbed, it is only 'available' to a kind of Maxwellian demon who can discern the thermal atomic motions and trace them back to get which-way infomation - but the interference pattern is destroyed anyway. If the entangled photon is simply allowed to fly out the window and off to infinity it is 'available' many years later to an inhabitant of some extra-solar planet - and the interference pattern is destroyed in our present. If is only if the lens is used to erase the which-way information that the interference pattern shows up. So one way to look at it is: So long as the which-way information is available, however impractical is may be for a person to get it, the interference pattern is destroyed. This is even clearer in the buckyball experiment. Brent Certainly I don't see any suggestion that there is a such thing as 'information' which is independent of some kind of sense receptivity. To the contrary: -- 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: Against Mechanism
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Kinda depends on what you mean by 'available'. If the entangled photon is allowed to hit a wall and be absorbed, it is only 'available' to a kind of Maxwellian demon who can discern the thermal atomic motions and trace them back to get which-way infomation - but the interference pattern is destroyed anyway. If the entangled photon is simply allowed to fly out the window and off to infinity it is 'available' many years later to an inhabitant of some extra-solar planet - and the interference pattern is destroyed in our present. What if the inhabitant of the extra-solar planet catches the photon in a lens just like the quantum eraser? What if the inhabitant naturally has eyes which function as quantum erasers? What if the inhabitant has one eye which is a quantum eraser and one which isn't? What if the inhabitant has a cat in a box with a cyanide capsule triggered by... If is only if the lens is used to erase the which-way information that the interference pattern shows up. So one way to look at it is: So long as the which-way information is available, however impractical is may be for a person to get it, the interference pattern is destroyed. This is even clearer in the buckyball experiment. Ok, that's what I thought. To me it's so obviously driven by concrete participation rather than 'information' though. Learning that it is supposed to rain doesn't mean that the rain-supposingness is a thing that physically exists independently of recipients of weather reports. The report is an event in which a receiver is informed by a broadcaster, but there is no report photon. News spreads in waves or from individual person to person discretely, depending on how you look at it, but there is no literal 'news' stuff. My view is that all energy is this way. It's a figurative signal from participant to participant - there is no actual thing that is the signal/sign itself, no noumena projectiles literally traveling through space, only events of interpreted significance. Craig Brent Certainly I don't see any suggestion that there is a such thing as 'information' which is independent of some kind of sense receptivity. To the contrary: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uuDI6V3A-TcJ. 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.
Negative entropy
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:43:02AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: Also I recently learned, I am ashamed to admit, that quantum information theory, which is based on complex numbers, allows for entropy to have negative values. Does comp also make that prediction? I am unable to find a ref for negative entropy in QIT. Richard I doubt that very much. Negative entropy implies probabilities greater than 1. Probabilities have always been in the range [0,1] in any version of QM I have worked on. Of course there is such a thing as Negentropy, but negentropy is actually a positive quantity. I don't think it is what you're looking for. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/4/2012 12:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Kinda depends on what you mean by 'available'. If the entangled photon is allowed to hit a wall and be absorbed, it is only 'available' to a kind of Maxwellian demon who can discern the thermal atomic motions and trace them back to get which-way infomation - but the interference pattern is destroyed anyway. If the entangled photon is simply allowed to fly out the window and off to infinity it is 'available' many years later to an inhabitant of some extra-solar planet - and the interference pattern is destroyed in our present. What if the inhabitant of the extra-solar planet catches the photon in a lens just like the quantum eraser? The interference would be destroyed. Note that the way the experiment works (and necessarily so) is that the photons detected at the interference plane have to be post-selected to pair up with those either erased or not on the other leg. So since an extra-solar observer could only catch a small fraction of the photons, the interference would erased in the corresponding small fraction of those hitting the interference plane. What if the inhabitant naturally has eyes which function as quantum erasers? Those wouldn't be eyes. The eraser focuses the photons on the same spot whichever slit they went through so the 'eyes' that would erase the information are 'eyes' that can't resolve the slits. What if the inhabitant has one eye which is a quantum eraser and one which isn't? Depends on which one detects the photon. What if the inhabitant has a cat in a box with a cyanide capsule triggered by... What if you read the papers yourself. 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: Against Mechanism
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:27:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2012 12:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Kinda depends on what you mean by 'available'. If the entangled photon is allowed to hit a wall and be absorbed, it is only 'available' to a kind of Maxwellian demon who can discern the thermal atomic motions and trace them back to get which-way infomation - but the interference pattern is destroyed anyway. If the entangled photon is simply allowed to fly out the window and off to infinity it is 'available' many years later to an inhabitant of some extra-solar planet - and the interference pattern is destroyed in our present. What if the inhabitant of the extra-solar planet catches the photon in a lens just like the quantum eraser? The interference would be destroyed. Note that the way the experiment works (and necessarily so) is that the photons detected at the interference plane have to be post-selected to pair up with those either erased or not on the other leg. So since an extra-solar observer could only catch a small fraction of the photons, the interference would erased in the corresponding small fraction of those hitting the interference plane. You could look for a temporal rather than spatial interference pattern. That way there would be a chance that if any photons were received they might continue to stream for long enough: The latest experiment is radically different because the slits exist in time not space, and because the interference pattern appears when the number of electrons at the detector is plotted as a function of their energy rather than their position on a screen. The work was performed at the Technical University of Vienna in collaboration with physicists from the Max Born Institute in Berlin, the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Munich and the University of Sarajevo. Paulus and co-workers focused a train of pulses from a Ti:sapphire laser into a chamber containing a gas of argon atoms. The pulses were so short – just 5 femtoseconds – that each one contained just a few cycles of the electric field. The team was able to control the output of the laser so that all the pulses were identical. The researchers could, for example, ensure that each pulse contained two maxima of the electric field (thatis, two peaks with large positive values) and one minimum (a peak with a large negative value). There was a small probability that an atom would be ionized by one or other of the maxima, which therefore played the role of the slits, with the resulting electron being accelerated towards a detector. If the atom was ionized by the minimum, the electron travelled in the opposite direction towards a second detector. The team registered the arrival times of the electrons at both detectors and then plotted the number of electrons as a function of energy. The researchers observed interference fringes at the first detector because it was impossible to know if an electron counted by the detector was produced during the first or second maximum. There was no interference pattern at the second detector because all the electrons were produced at the same time at the minimum. However,when the phase of the laser was changed so that there was one maximum and two minima, interference fringes were seen at the second detector but not at the first. “We have complete which-way information and no which-way information at the same time for the same electron,” says Paulus. It just depends on the direction from which we look at it. -http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2005/mar/02/new-look-for-classic-experiment What if the inhabitant naturally has eyes which function as quantum erasers? Those wouldn't be eyes. The eraser focuses the photons on the same spot whichever slit they went through so the 'eyes' that would erase the information are 'eyes' that can't resolve the slits. Maybe more photoreceptors than eyes, but they can still discern light from dark, so they could be used as eyes of a sort, especially if their brain accumulated light-dark patterns over time...i.e. more like optical ears. What if the inhabitant has one eye which is a quantum eraser and one which isn't? Depends on which one detects the photon. Yes, that's the point. If you don't know which one, how does the interference pattern know? What if the inhabitant has a cat in a box with a cyanide capsule triggered by... What if you read the papers yourself. I try but find the jargon distracting. It's amazing how much clearer Leibniz and Einstein are to read - it seems like they are actually trying to explain something that they understand rather than impress a peer review or grant committee. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this
Re: Against Mechanism
On 12/4/2012 9:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:27:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2012 12:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 2:52:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Kinda depends on what you mean by 'available'. If the entangled photon is allowed to hit a wall and be absorbed, it is only 'available' to a kind of Maxwellian demon who can discern the thermal atomic motions and trace them back to get which-way infomation - but the interference pattern is destroyed anyway. If the entangled photon is simply allowed to fly out the window and off to infinity it is 'available' many years later to an inhabitant of some extra-solar planet - and the interference pattern is destroyed in our present. What if the inhabitant of the extra-solar planet catches the photon in a lens just like the quantum eraser? The interference would be destroyed. Note that the way the experiment works (and necessarily so) is that the photons detected at the interference plane have to be post-selected to pair up with those either erased or not on the other leg. So since an extra-solar observer could only catch a small fraction of the photons, the interference would erased in the corresponding small fraction of those hitting the interference plane. You could look for a temporal rather than spatial interference pattern. That way there would be a chance that if any photons were received they might continue to stream for long enough: The latest experiment is radically different because the slits exist in time not space, and because the interference pattern appears when the number of electrons at the detector is plotted as a function of their energy rather than their position on a screen. The work was performed at the Technical University of Vienna in collaboration with physicists from the Max Born Institute in Berlin, the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Munich and the University of Sarajevo. Paulus and co-workers focused a train of pulses from a Ti:sapphire laser into a chamber containing a gas of argon atoms. The pulses were so short – just 5 femtoseconds – that each one contained just a few cycles of the electric field. The team was able to control the output of the laser so that all the pulses were identical. The researchers could, for example, ensure that each pulse contained two maxima of the electric field (thatis, two peaks with large positive values) and one minimum (a peak with a large negative value). There was a small probability that an atom would be ionized by one or other of the maxima, which therefore played the role of the slits, with the resulting electron being accelerated towards a detector. If the atom was ionized by the minimum, the electron travelled in the opposite direction towards a second detector. The team registered the arrival times of the electrons at both detectors and then plotted the number of electrons as a function of energy. The researchers observed interference fringes at the first detector because it was impossible to know if an electron counted by the detector was produced during the first or second maximum. There was no interference pattern at the second detector because all the electrons were produced at the same time at the minimum. However,when the phase of the laser was changed so that there was one maximum and two minima, interference fringes were seen at the second detector but not at the first. “We have complete which-way information and no which-way information at the same time for the same electron,” says Paulus. It just depends on the direction from which we look at it. -http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2005/mar/02/new-look-for-classic-experiment I looked at the paper. It doesn't show the detector arrangement, but from the description I don't see that it can obtain which-way and no-which-way for the *same* electron. What if the inhabitant naturally has eyes which function as quantum erasers? Those wouldn't be eyes. The eraser focuses the photons on the same spot whichever slit they went through so the 'eyes' that would erase the information are 'eyes' that can't resolve the slits. Maybe more photoreceptors than eyes, but they can still discern light from dark, so they could be used as eyes of a sort, especially if their brain accumulated light-dark patterns over time...i.e. more like optical ears. But if they don't detect the direction of the photon with sufficient resolution then they won't act as erasers of the interference pattern. What if the inhabitant has one eye which is a quantum eraser and one which isn't? Depends on which one detects the photon. Yes, that's the point. If you don't know which one,
