Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou. He has built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set (or the void as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental concept. He takes over the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms of set theory and then adopts a kind of mathematical Platonist attitude, saying that all being is mathematical and hence 'founded on the void'. I have grappled with his theory for a while but concluded that although Badiou distances himself from Derrida etc. he doesn't escape the 'French disease' in philosophy: using impressive sounding but in the end arbitary terminology to cover up the logical gaps in his theory. Obviously I don't want to say that all French philosophers are like that, but the likes of Derrida, Deleuze etc. have done so much damage in philosophy, I feel. Badiou pretends to be so scientific and stringent with his set-theoretic and mathematical ontology, but in the end he is just as arbitrary and pretentious as Derrida in my view. How do you perceive Badiou? Nevertheless, I could not resist buying Badiou's book on category theory (Mathematics of the transcendental), especially after your suggestions about category theory. But then I read on the inside flap that this book is essential reading for his many followers. And the I felt the need to vomit... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
I agree with you about Derrida so on. I bought quite a few of their books in the 80s (10,000 plateaus so on) and (fairly) rapidly worked out that they were talking complete rubbish (even without help from Alain Sokal...) I'm quite pleased to say. On 29 October 2014 21:04, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if you know the work of the French philosopher Badiou. He has built an entire ontology on set theory, taking the empty set (or the void as dramatically calls it) as his most fundamental concept. He takes over the Von Neumann derivation of math in terms of set theory and then adopts a kind of mathematical Platonist attitude, saying that all being is mathematical and hence 'founded on the void'. I have grappled with his theory for a while but concluded that although Badiou distances himself from Derrida etc. he doesn't escape the 'French disease' in philosophy: using impressive sounding but in the end arbitary terminology to cover up the logical gaps in his theory. Obviously I don't want to say that all French philosophers are like that, but the likes of Derrida, Deleuze etc. have done so much damage in philosophy, I feel. Badiou pretends to be so scientific and stringent with his set-theoretic and mathematical ontology, but in the end he is just as arbitrary and pretentious as Derrida in my view. How do you perceive Badiou? Nevertheless, I could not resist buying Badiou's book on category theory (Mathematics of the transcendental), especially after your suggestions about category theory. But then I read on the inside flap that this book is essential reading for his many followers. And the I felt the need to vomit... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?
On 27 Oct 2014, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote: On 10/27/2014 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the probabilities. I don't recall you having shown that. Can you repeat it. By a result of Goldblatt, you have that QL proves A iff the modal logic B proves some transformation T(A), defined by T(p) = []p(Which Rawling and Selesnick called the quantization of p), p atomical sentence (that is arithmetical sentence without quantifier and variable, like s(s(0) + s(0) = s(s(s(0))). T(A B) = T(A) T(B) T(~A) = [] T(~A) This makes the modal logic B a classical modal rendering of quantum logic, a bit llike Gödel and others saw that S4 was a classical epistemological rendering of intuitionist logic. The Kripke semantics of B is symmetry and reflexivity: B's main axiom are A - []A, and []A - A, the accessibility relation is symmetrical and reflexive. Note that the complement relation with alpha R beta iff NOT (alpha R beta) gives a proximity relation, and an abstract orthogonality condition. If the arithmetic material hypostases, defining the probability one for the FPI on the sigma_1 sentences (roughly, the UD*) dis not have such an abstract orthogonality conditions, then classical comp as I defined it (in AUDA) would be refuted. Now, I showed that the arithmetical hypostases (S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*) does verify that orthogonality conditions, on the sigma_1 sentences, despite the modal logic is bot a weakening of B (we loss the closure for the necessitation rule), and a strengthening we get new axioms (like we get the new Grz for the internal solipsist, the first person, or Pltinus' universal soul). Those logic verifies the two main axiom of B, and suggest that the bottom physics, which sums on all sigma_1 sentences, is indeed symmetrical, linear, reflexive, ... let us say that we can hope for some Gleason theorem there, which would determine entirely the measure on the directly accessible sigma_1 state. Do you show that the Hilbert space of QM must be over the complex numbers? Or does your proof allow quaternion or octonion QM? You know I share with Ramanujan (and thanks to him) some love for the number 24, so I would be happy if the Octonion, a famous divisor of 24 could play some rôle, but that, I would say, has to wait for the Gleason theorem of the introspective physics of the universal, and Löbian, machine. I do have argument for octonions playing some key role, but I keep them for myself, because if the number theorist find physics before the theologians, theology could sleep again for one millennium or more. I can imagine a number theoreticalism capable of eliminating consciousness too (thats' why I am reassured that David Nyman avoided that trap consciously or explicitly so). Come on, Brent, the greeks discovered the Automobile of Science, to explore deep questions, they use it from -500 to +500. After that it was declared illegal in Occident, so to speak. We get half of it back at the enlightenment period, and I am just pointing that computer science + the computationalism offers the second half, or at least a second half. I am only the guy who tries to restart the Automobile, that is science including theology, the mother of math and physics (before the political pseudo-religious recuperation). You ask me if QM is octonionic ? There are now two questions: what does nature say? and what does the universal machine see in arithmetic from inside. And we can compare, even if today it requires hard math like the modal logic of arithmetical (and non arithmetical) self- references. Good textbooks exists, as I have given references. Keep in mind we try to figure what happens, not how to make bombs and rockets. We want just a coherent picture of the possible whole, and this without eliminating persons, consciousness, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If recombine just means exhibiting interference then I'd say it's just a semantic quibble. When a photon goes thru both of Young's slits and interferes with itself I'd say that happens in one world. The universe splits because there is a difference between them, the photon (or electron) goes through the left slit in one universe and the right slit in another universe. If after that the photons hit a photographic plate (or just a brick wall) both photons are destroyed and there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes so they recombine, but if we examine history we will see evidence that the photon went through the left slit only and evidence that it went through the right slit only and this causes interference bands. If we hadn't put a photographic plate (or a brick wall) in the photon's path and just let them continue into infinite space the 2 universes would always be different and so never recombine. For statistical reasons we only see interference if the 2 universes are almost identical; although it's logically possible that the universe where Lincoln was not assassinated and our universe could both evolve into a state that was identical and so recombine and cause interference it's astronomically unlikely. Actually astronomically is far too weak a word but infinitely is too strong, this my be the very rare occurrence where a new word might be useful. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 29 Oct 2014, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote: On 10/28/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2014, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote: On 10/27/2014 3:38 AM, LizR wrote: It would be nice if Mr Clark would EITHER stop joining in with discussions just to say that he doesn't care about comp, OR state what he agrees or disagrees with in Bruno's stated argument. Just saying it's obviously wrong doesn't really cut it. So far the only real (non-sarcastic, non-insult-based) objection I've heard comes down to a semantic quibble to do with redefining our concept of an individual person. This is exactly the same redefinition that was brought up by Everett in 1957. It isn't in itself contentious - a physicist who believes the MWI to be correct will come to the same conclusions about indeterminacy that someone using Bruno's matter transmitter would - that it's a phenomenon experienced from a first person perspective because of the person in question being split into two copies. The phenomena actually map onto each other, because both comp and Everett allow for the possibility that from the third person viewpoint the duplication could be observed - quantum computers rely on precisely that fact. Quantum computers (of the circuit type) rely on interference to pick out the right solution. Interference implies superposition in the same world. Only if you isolate the subsystem well enough. Imagine that I can isolate my room, where I am, sufficiently, and in that room I succeed in isolating schroedinger cat (prepared in the alive + dead state) in a box. Then, in my isolated room I look at the cat (measuring in the alive/dead base) .QM description is that when I do that measurement, I put myself in the superposition alive + dead. It follows from the linearity of evolution and of the tensor product. You might say that I am in that superposed state in *one* world. But if my room is not sufficiently well isolated, or more normally when I go out of that room, announcing with some joy that the cat is alive, well soon enough, the environment (the building with that room, then city, and you coming for a visit) get in the superposition history of the earth with that Shroedinger car alive + history of the earth with that Shroedinger car dead. Would you still say that it is a superposition in *one* world. Yes, the differentiation of the galaxies will follows, at the speed of light, and I guess there will be two Milky ways colliding with Andromeda, one with archive describing the fact that that Schroedinger cat was alive, and one with the fact that that Schroedinger cat is dead. Would you still say that there is one world? I like to define a physical world (in the quantum theory) by a set of objects/events close for interaction. That makes the many world the literal interpretation of QM. Without collapse, I don't see how the term of the superposition can ever disappear. The superposition doesn't disappear but it becomes dispersed into the environmental degrees of freedom, so FAPP there are separate classical worlds. My point is that superposition is not a defining attribute of different worlds, it's relative incoherence so subspaces. I have no problem with that. And despite Everett's own opinion on this, I think it was a good idea to call that the relative state theory, instead of the many worlds, which can lead to naïve view of multiple aristotelian worlds, which would be doing the aristotelian error an infinity of times. In arithmetic also, all we have are the relative states, and their relative measures. (cf the ASSA/RSSA old discussion, a recurrent theme on the list). I highly recommend Scott Aaronson's blog http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ , for straight talk about quantum computing (his book Quantum Computing Since Democritus is also very good). What is his position on Everett? (2) One of the first questions anyone asks on learning quantum mechanics is, “OK, but do all these branches of the wavefunction really exist? or are they just mathematical constructs used to calculate probabilities?” Roughly speaking, Many-Worlders would say they do exist, while Copenhagenists would say they don’t. Many worlders, when wise avoid the questions, they do exist in the formalism, so if the tehiry is correct, they can't just simply disappear. But it is false or ambiguous to say that the Copenhagenists would say they don't believe that they exist. They believe indeed that one of them exist! That is why they need a mechanism to make disappearing some term in the wave, and they invented the collapse, which is simply a way to say that they believe that QM does not apply to them, or the measuring apparatus, or consciousness, etc. They did not find any evidence that there is a collapse, nor any senseful criteria for something not obeying QM.. Of course, part of what
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 29 Oct 2014, at 01:12, meekerdb wrote: On 10/28/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 22:52, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, I define consciousness as my ability to make choices. That is an unusual definition, and not one I think most people would agree with, although they'd probably agree it's involved in consciousness. But yes, using that definition the MWI makes consciousness an illusion. (Most people call the ability to make choices free will. That is an illusion under the MWI, and indeed most theories of physics.) Bruno responds with the Gaussian (somewhat like measure theory) which suggests that some worlds are less important than this one. I don't know about Bruno but David Deutsch appears to think that some decisions will have a much higher measure in the multiverse than others. So, say, 99.99% of me (so to speak) will have coffee and only 0.01% will decide on a whim to have a milkshake. (And 0.1% will think so hard about it that they spontaneously combust.) That raises the question of how the multiple-worlds split. Does the 0.01% imply that the world must split into 1e5 copies, in one of which you have a milkshape? Or does it require that it must split 1e15 ways so that you can spontaneously combust in one. I think Bruno's UD tries to take care of this by have infinitely many threads thru the occasion of your whim. But this is different compared to the Helsinki/Moscow/Washington thought experiment. In that case the Moscow and Washington guys are created. But in the UD's infinite threads the infinite threads all exist timelessly. In the DeWitt-Wheeler equation, time disappears too. In the WM- duplication, guys are created relatively to you, and *that* happens infinitely often in the UD-computations. Like Einstein said, time is an illusion, although a persistent one. Neither Everett, nor Deutsch, nor computationalism solved all problem, we just get the tools to formulate them. Wise many-worlders will not pretend that no collapse explains all weirdness. They just feel like the collapse itself is just too much weird than to be accepted. Here too I am close to Einstein view: I don't see what it could mean to abandon 3p- determinacy and 3p- locality in the physical realm: God does not play dice, and there are no action at a distance, although it might look like that, but only if we abstract away some terms or the superposition. In quantum teleportation, Alice has to send some bit of classical information to tell him which part of the multiple terms wave they share. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 29 Oct 2014, at 01:26, meekerdb wrote: On 10/28/2014 4:30 PM, LizR wrote: On 29 October 2014 06:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/27/2014 11:47 PM, LizR wrote: As far as I can make out from David Deutsch's explanations qcs involve a temporary splitting into two or more worlds, (or the equivalent - differentiation or whatever). But to say the split is temporary is to violate the idea that they are separate worlds. But worlds are allowed to recombine in the Everett interpretation. In fact they aren't even well defined, only approximations to what's actually there, at least according to DD (and as usual assuming I understood him correctly). If recombine just means exhibiting interference then I'd say it's just a semantic quibble. When a photon goes thru both of Young's slits and interferes with itself I'd say that happens in one world. I would say that below your substitition lebel, there is an infinity of worlds/computations. It is just that your relevant brain state for your consciousness is independent of the fact that the photon go through hole one or two. Maybe Deutsch thinks of it as splitting into two worlds and then recombining at the detector screen. He would say that there is never splitting, but your brain has a long history, and it has favorized the position base, and that can be justified by the decoherence theory. Once the detection has occurred, a spot on the screen, then the split has been amplified and entangled into the environment and is statistically irreversible. Then that defines a classical world (in my view). That world will not recombine with a world in which the spot appears at a different place on the screen. OK. We can define world by set of events closed for interaction. Have you read Zeh's quantum darwinism? He attempts to explain why we perceive a world whose stable observable features are the ones we see. Deutsch has generally just assumed that the observable world must have the classical character we see. Everett and Bohr assumed what variable was classically measurable was defined by the choice of apparatus; but that seems circular. I agree much with Zeh, notably on its account of time. I have not read the more recent publication, but quantum darwinism makes, as computationalism, by generalizing Everett move, lead to a sort of logical evolution of the physical laws. I appreciate also Mittelstaedt different books, and Piron. And thanks to Selesnick, my interest in Finkelstein has been revived. But computatioanalism+computer science approache this from the other side, with a different conception of realitry (more platonist than aristotelian). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 28 Oct 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The entire point of Bruno's proof and all of his bizarre thought experiments is to examine and get rid of that semantic quibble, and yet from page 1 Bruno acts as if the concept of personal identity was already crystal clear even though in his thought experiments such things were stretched about as far as they could go. In such circumstances using person pronouns with abandon as Bruno does without giving them a second thought is just ridiculous. If you say so. Maybe this is due to English not being his first language. No and I am not a member of the grammar police because I often don't well speak English myself, I'm talking about a fundamental error in Bruno's thinking process covered up by the very sloppy use of personal pronouns. In everyday life it's not important to be super careful with pronouns and it's possible to be careless with them without causing ambiguities, but if matter duplicating machines are introduced into the mix extraordinary care must be used and Bruno didn't do so. Where? But I know your answer by heart, and it consists in repeating what I say, but avoiding the 1p and 3p, and 3-1p, etc. distinctions that I introduce. You did not show an error. You attribute me fuzzy things, but your can't refer where I said them, except by quoting half sentences out of their context. However it may be worth looking past how he says it to what he's trying to say. I can't because what he's saying is tightly bound up in the meanings of those personal pronouns and in a world with matter duplicating machines the meaning of those personal pronouns is ambiguous. In UDA I use the common sense notion of first person and third person, specialized in the term of duplication boxes. In AUDA, (the arithmetical translation of the UDA) I use Kleene's second recursion theorem, or the Dx = F(xx, ...) method. I seem to remember that HE (Hugh Everett :-) talks about the nature of the observer in his paper Yes, and when Everett talks about the observer there is never any ambiguity because the laws of physics allow us to see only one thing that fits that description, but that is NOT the case if you have matter duplicating machines as in Bruno's thought exparament. If that was relevant, add in the protocol in step three that the one reconstituted in Moscow is send to the goulag, and the one reconstituted in Washington is sent to jail, and that they will never meet, nor have any visit. In that case, with your reasoning above, you would accept the uncertainty, but as this is not relevant for the immediate apprehension, as we could relieve you from the goulag and the jail, after all. So you fail to explain us what is the difference. If you look at Bruno's thought experiment it does in fact depend on the past. His talk about prediction is to do with how things will appear to have happened after they've happened And that's yet another problem that I didn't mention in my last post, not that predictions have the slightest thing to do with personal identity but Bruno says that the Helsinki man's prediction that John Clark will see Washington AND Moscow has been proven wrong because afterwards the Washington Man said I see only Washington. But what makes Bruno think that the information received by the Washington Man alone (or the Moscow man alone) is enough to evaluate the truth or falsehood of the Helsinki Man's prediction? Because we have agreed that you John Clark survived in both place, and so we take notice of both observation. When they said both W M, they both agree that this failed, and understand (I hope) that if they would have written W v M, but not sure which one, they would have both note that the prediction is correct. Children understand that. You just stop doing the thought experience, like if you died in the process. You did agree that you don't die, you did agree that you will not feel in a superposition of feeling to see both city at once, so, in the thought experience, you can only expect one of the outcome W, or M, never both, or you are no more talking about what you expect in the first person sense. I've asked Bruno this question nineteen dozen times but never received a coherent answer. You did, but keep restating it introducing your ambiguities, avoiding the 1p/3p distinction. you do have to be more careful, because you are only incidentally linked to one copy in Bruno's thought experiment, NO! You're linked to BOTH copies with equal strength, and that's exactly the problem Comp avoids that problem. There is no problem at all. It is enough to read the notes in the diaries, as we don't talk of any more than that, at that step of the reasoning. and is why when Bruno starts saying that after the duplication you
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: Well that WAS the point of my original post... : D On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense. Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: But the span of infinity is outside spacetime. I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into something other than a continuum. It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non continuum)? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 30 October 2014 05:50, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If recombine just means exhibiting interference then I'd say it's just a semantic quibble. When a photon goes thru both of Young's slits and interferes with itself I'd say that happens in one world. The universe splits because there is a difference between them, the photon (or electron) goes through the left slit in one universe and the right slit in another universe. If after that the photons hit a photographic plate (or just a brick wall) both photons are destroyed and there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes so they recombine, but if we examine history we will see evidence that the photon went through the left slit only and evidence that it went through the right slit only and this causes interference bands. If we hadn't put a photographic plate (or a brick wall) in the photon's path and just let them continue into infinite space the 2 universes would always be different and so never recombine. For statistical reasons we only see interference if the 2 universes are almost identical; although it's logically possible that the universe where Lincoln was not assassinated and our universe could both evolve into a state that was identical and so recombine and cause interference it's astronomically unlikely. Actually astronomically is far too weak a word but infinitely is too strong, this my be the very rare occurrence where a new word might be useful. Nicely summarised. In other words any such phenomenon is a split - including the operation of a quantum computer - and some splits can recombine (especially if we arrange things so they do). I didn't think a superposition made sense in Everett because it implies both objects exist in the same (sub)universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks for thinking of me. In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable. Richard On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: But the span of infinity is outside spacetime. I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into something other than a continuum. It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non continuum)? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks for thinking of me. In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable. Apparently eating lots of chocolate can help stave off dementia and even senior moments. That and a bottle of red wine a day. (And hell, even if they can't) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
Been there. Done that. Dementia comes from sleep deprivation due to ... too many details. On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks for thinking of me. In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable. Apparently eating lots of chocolate can help stave off dementia and even senior moments. That and a bottle of red wine a day. (And hell, even if they can't) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 10/29/2014 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If recombine just means exhibiting interference then I'd say it's just a semantic quibble. When a photon goes thru both of Young's slits and interferes with itself I'd say that happens in one world. The universe splits because there is a difference between them, the photon (or electron) goes through the left slit in one universe and the right slit in another universe. If after that the photons There's only one photon. hit a photographic plate (or just a brick wall) both photons are destroyed and there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes so they recombine, But there is a difference in the path lengths from the source to detector, which produces the probability pattern for detection. This pattern is one world. If the path lengths were different in different worlds there would be no interference of phases, which is just what happens when you shoot classical particles thru the slits. but if we examine history we will see evidence that the photon went through the left slit only and evidence that it went through the right slit only and this causes interference bands. ?? What kind of evidence do you refer to. Delayed quantum eraser experiments show that if there is such evidence, if it's not erased, the interference disappears. If we hadn't put a photographic plate (or a brick wall) in the photon's path and just let them continue into infinite space the 2 universes would always be different and so never recombine. It depends on whether they interact with the environment. In the C70 buckyball experiment, photons that were never detected still localized the buckyballs and destroyed the interference pattern. On the other hand in the Dopfer experiment the idler photon was focused on the detector so that lateral momentum information was erased and the interference pattern was observed. Brent For statistical reasons we only see interference if the 2 universes are almost identical; although it's logically possible that the universe where Lincoln was not assassinated and our universe could both evolve into a state that was identical and so recombine and cause interference it's astronomically unlikely. Actually astronomically is far too weak a word but infinitely is too strong, this my be the very rare occurrence where a new word might be useful. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 10/29/2014 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2014, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote: On 10/28/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2014, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote: On 10/27/2014 3:38 AM, LizR wrote: It would be nice if Mr Clark would EITHER stop joining in with discussions just to say that he doesn't care about comp, OR state what he agrees or disagrees with in Bruno's stated argument. Just saying it's obviously wrong doesn't really cut it. So far the only real (non-sarcastic, non-insult-based) objection I've heard comes down to a semantic quibble to do with redefining our concept of an individual person. This is exactly the same redefinition that was brought up by Everett in 1957. It isn't in itself contentious - a physicist who believes the MWI to be correct will come to the same conclusions about indeterminacy that someone using Bruno's matter transmitter would - that it's a phenomenon experienced from a first person perspective because of the person in question being split into two copies. The phenomena actually map onto each other, because both comp and Everett allow for the possibility that from the third person viewpoint the duplication could be observed - quantum computers rely on precisely that fact. Quantum computers (of the circuit type) rely on interference to pick out the right solution. Interference implies superposition in the same world. Only if you isolate the subsystem well enough. Imagine that I can isolate my room, where I am, sufficiently, and in that room I succeed in isolating schroedinger cat (prepared in the alive + dead state) in a box. Then, in my isolated room I look at the cat (measuring in the alive/dead base) .QM description is that when I do that measurement, I put myself in the superposition alive + dead. It follows from the linearity of evolution and of the tensor product. You might say that I am in that superposed state in *one* world. But if my room is not sufficiently well isolated, or more normally when I go out of that room, announcing with some joy that the cat is alive, well soon enough, the environment (the building with that room, then city, and you coming for a visit) get in the superposition history of the earth with that Shroedinger car alive + history of the earth with that Shroedinger car dead. Would you still say that it is a superposition in *one* world. Yes, the differentiation of the galaxies will follows, at the speed of light, and I guess there will be two Milky ways colliding with Andromeda, one with archive describing the fact that that Schroedinger cat was alive, and one with the fact that that Schroedinger cat is dead. Would you still say that there is one world? I like to define a physical world (in the quantum theory) by a set of objects/events close for interaction. That makes the many world the literal interpretation of QM. Without collapse, I don't see how the term of the superposition can ever disappear. The superposition doesn't disappear but it becomes dispersed into the environmental degrees of freedom, so FAPP there are separate classical worlds. My point is that superposition is not a defining attribute of different worlds, it's relative incoherence so subspaces. I have no problem with that. And despite Everett's own opinion on this, I think it was a good idea to call that the relative state theory, instead of the many worlds, which can lead to naïve view of multiple aristotelian worlds, which would be doing the aristotelian error an infinity of times. In arithmetic also, all we have are the relative states, and their relative measures. (cf the ASSA/RSSA old discussion, a recurrent theme on the list). I highly recommend Scott Aaronson's blog http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ , for straight talk about quantum computing (his book Quantum Computing Since Democritus is also very good). What is his position on Everett? /(2) One of the first questions anyone asks on learning quantum mechanics is, “OK, but do all these branches of the wavefunction really exist? or are they just mathematical constructs used to calculate probabilities?” Roughly speaking, Many-Worlders would say they do exist, while Copenhagenists would say they don’t. / Many worlders, when wise avoid the questions, they do exist in the formalism, so if the tehiry is correct, they can't just simply disappear. But it is false or ambiguous to say that the /Copenhagenists/ would say they don't believe that they exist. They believe indeed that one of them exist! That is why they need a mechanism to make disappearing some term in the wave, and they invented the collapse, which is simply a way to say that they believe that QM does not apply to them, or the measuring apparatus, or consciousness, etc. They did not find any evidence that there is a collapse, nor any senseful criteria for something not obeying QM.. /Of course, part of what makes the question slippery is that it’s
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 10/29/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2014, at 01:12, meekerdb wrote: On 10/28/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 22:52, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Liz, I define consciousness as my ability to make choices. That is an unusual definition, and not one I think most people would agree with, although they'd probably agree it's /involved/ in consciousness. But yes, using that definition the MWI makes consciousness an illusion. (Most people call the ability to make choices free will. That is an illusion under the MWI, and indeed most theories of physics.) Bruno responds with the Gaussian (somewhat like measure theory) which suggests that some worlds are less important than this one. I don't know about Bruno but David Deutsch appears to think that some decisions will have a much higher measure in the multiverse than others. So, say, 99.99% of me (so to speak) will have coffee and only 0.01% will decide on a whim to have a milkshake. (And 0.1% will think so hard about it that they spontaneously combust.) That raises the question of how the multiple-worlds split. Does the 0.01% imply that the world must split into 1e5 copies, in one of which you have a milkshape? Or does it require that it must split 1e15 ways so that you can spontaneously combust in one. I think Bruno's UD tries to take care of this by have infinitely many threads thru the occasion of your whim. But this is different compared to the Helsinki/Moscow/Washington thought experiment. In that case the Moscow and Washington guys are created. But in the UD's infinite threads the infinite threads all exist timelessly. In the DeWitt-Wheeler equation, time disappears too. In the WM-duplication, guys are created relatively to you, and *that* happens infinitely often in the UD-computations. Like Einstein said, time is an illusion, although a persistent one. Neither Everett, nor Deutsch, nor computationalism solved all problem, we just get the tools to formulate them. Wise many-worlders will not pretend that no collapse explains all weirdness. They just feel like the collapse itself is just too much weird than to be accepted. Here too I am close to Einstein view: I don't see what it could mean to abandon 3p- determinacy and 3p-locality in the physical realm I think we know exactly what it means - it means Copenhagen: randomness and non-locality in spacetime. My problem with Copenhagen is that it made measurement an abstract mathematical operation with no physics - which seems like a bad basis for fundamental physics. Decoherence has allowed the Copenhagen interpretation to go part way in defining measurement, but it is still not complete. Taking partial traces is just like the projection postulate. Zurek's quantum Darwinism looks promising and it may reach all the way to the mind/body problem. Brent : God does not play dice, and there are no action at a distance, although it might look like that, but only if we abstract away some terms or the superposition. In quantum teleportation, Alice has to send some bit of classical information to tell him which part of the multiple terms wave they share. Bruno To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 10/29/2014 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: But the span of infinity is outside spacetime. I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into something other than a continuum. It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non continuum)? The observation that gamma rays from a very distant gamma ray burster arrived at the same time, independent of their energy, showed that the discreteness of space must be at a level two orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length - which had been thought to be scale of discreteness. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: Well that WAS the point of my original post... : D On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense. Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :) Bruce I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: Well that WAS the point of my original post... : D On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense. Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :) Bruce I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not quibbling today. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
you can delete your posts (I think?) On 30 October 2014 12:07, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: Well that WAS the point of my original post... : D On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense. Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :) Bruce I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not quibbling today. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The universe splits because there is a difference between them, the photon (or electron) goes through the left slit in one universe and the right slit in another universe. If after that the photons There's only one photon. Not if Everett is correct, if he is then when a photon encounters something, like a wall with 2 slits in it, everything that can happen does happen. And for that to occur you need more than one photon and more than one universe. If the path lengths were different in different worlds there would be no interference If anything is still different when the photon hits the photographic plate there will be no interference. You only see interference if there is a change, a difference, so one universe splits into two and then another change that makes them identical again. Unless the first change is very very small it's almost impossible there will ever be a second change large enough for the 2 universes to become identical again. but if we examine history we will see evidence that the photon went through the left slit only and evidence that it went through the right slit only and this causes interference bands. ?? What kind of evidence do you refer to. A interference pattern. Delayed quantum eraser experiments show that if there is such evidence, if it's not erased, the interference disappears That is correct. If the information about which slits the photons went through exists then the 2 universe are still different when the photons hit the plate because the information must be recorded in something physical and whatever the physical medium is the arrangement of something physical will be different, so the 2 universes are not identical and thus do not recombine and no interference pattern forms on the photographic and there is no indication that any photon went through more than one slit. However if the information about which slits the photons went through is erased after they pass the slits but before they hit the photographic plate then there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes, even though there once was, so they recombine and and interfere. There isn't a lot of interference because they were never more than slightly different but there is some and we see it as interference bands on that photographic plate and indications that the photons went through both slits. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 10/29/2014 6:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The universe splits because there is a difference between them, the photon (or electron) goes through the left slit in one universe and the right slit in another universe. If after that the photons There's only one photon. Not if Everett is correct, if he is then when a photon encounters something, like a wall with 2 slits in it, everything that can happen does happen. And for that to occur you need more than one photon and more than one universe. If the path lengths were different in different worlds there would be no interference If anything is still different when the photon hits the photographic plate there will be no interference. You only see interference if there is a change, a difference, so one universe splits into two and then another change that makes them identical again. Unless the first change is very very small it's almost impossible there will ever be a second change large enough for the 2 universes to become identical again. but if we examine history we will see evidence that the photon went through the left slit only and evidence that it went through the right slit only and this causes interference bands. ?? What kind of evidence do you refer to. A interference pattern. That's hardly evidence the photon went thru one slit only. Delayed quantum eraser experiments show that if there is such evidence, if it's not erased, the interference disappears That is correct. If the information about which slits the photons went through exists then the 2 universe are still different when the photons hit the plate because the information must be recorded in something physical and whatever the physical medium is the arrangement of something physical will be different, so the 2 universes are not identical and thus do not recombine and no interference pattern forms on the photographic and there is no indication that any photon went through more than one slit. However if the information about which slits the photons went through is erased after they pass the slits but before they hit the photographic plate No, it's called the /*delayed*/ quantum eraser experiment because the which-way information can be erased /*after*/ they hit the detector arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 v1 13 Mar 1999 Brent then there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes, even though there once was, so they recombine and and interfere. There isn't a lot of interference because they were never more than slightly different but there is some and we see it as interference bands on that photographic plate and indications that the photons went through both slits. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote: Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of attractive and repulsive forces A magnetic field neither attracts nor repels an electron, instead it applied a force that is always at right angles to the electron's direction of motion. Oh well, at lest Kant came up with a theory that had the capacity to be proven wrong, which is more than I can say about most philosophers. John K Clark Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics' where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter infinitely throughout space. Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the objects moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in the objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive). Here is what he writes: These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two ways for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line: either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make sense of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1) I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most elementary form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get closer to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they unified into? Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity can also be repulsive. In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role, though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to which the electromagnetic force appears to be related. In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role. So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and repulsion? In short: matter is defined as filling space and as impenetrable for other pieces of matter. According to Kant, this concept of matter can be fully contstructed -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ?? What kind of evidence do you refer to. A interference pattern. That's hardly evidence the photon went thru one slit only. Of course not it's would be the exact opposite, it's evidence the photon went through both slits. if the information about which slits the photons went through is erased after they pass the slits but before they hit the photographic plate No, it's called the *delayed* quantum eraser experiment because the which-way information can be erased *after* they hit the detector Fine, you record the information about which slit the photons went through then wait ten years, then erase the information. Provided that the recorded information has not interacted with anything in the preceding 10 year, such as you looking at it, then when it is erased there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes and thus they recombine. And so if you then develop the photographic plate a interference pattern will be observed on it. If you didn't erase the information they wouldn't recombine and thus no interference pattern would be found when you developed it. John K Clark. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 v1 13 Mar 1999 Brent then there is no longer any difference between the 2 universes, even though there once was, so they recombine and and interfere. There isn't a lot of interference because they were never more than slightly different but there is some and we see it as interference bands on that photographic plate and indications that the photons went through both slits. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
