Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:44:25PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Russell Standish wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an > >>infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see > >>super

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see superpositions of positions? Bruce But we do! Whenever the two slit experiment

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/25/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unk

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle >>> unknowable". >>> >> >> >> Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 LizR wrote: > A genuine sceptic (and a genuine scientist) is agnostic about what the > final science may turn out to be, if we ever get there. Who are these strawmen scientists who think our current theories are the final word on the nature of reality? > > What Mr Stein

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an > infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see > superpositions of positions? > > Bruce But we do! Whenever the two slit experiment is performed, f

RE: Ultraluminous quasar at high redshift

According to my model, our Universe was created about 13.8 billion years ago at the time of the explosion of a Monster Black Hole that had consumed almost all of our predecessor universe. However, it had at that time not consumed all of the galaxies in our predecessor universe. Those galaxies

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 , meekerdb wrote: >> Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the >> laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of >> physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence >> it is likely that Bell's th

Ultraluminous quasar at high redshift

Apparently this looks like a 12bn sun black hole (or collapsed object very much like one) which formed near enough to the big bang that it is causing headaches for astrophysicists trying to explain how it could have grown so large so quickly. http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14241.epdf?referre

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 2/25/2015 1:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark > wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: > skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so i

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/25/2015 1:02 PM, LizR wrote: Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence it is likely that Bell's theorem doesn't r

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In particular one has to solve the basis problem I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it. The relative subjective state does not depend on the base. That is precisely the problem. There are an infinite nu

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 25 February 2015 at 15:00, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 , LizR wrote: > > >> > skeptical atheism appears to be based on faith. >> > > I see, so belief in God is based on faith and so is doubts about the > existence of God, but for a word to be meaningful there must be contrast, >

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Spudy, "a condition" of what??? and WHAT (great!) "program"??? what would you call 'electric' (not in 101 physix) with 'pulses(?) and 'gaps(?) in between? Mainly: what the hell should we call " R E A L " ??? Once you enter the agnostic domain (mind you: not SKEPTIC, which is - like atheism - base

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence it is likely that Bell's theorem doesn't require quantum mystical nonlocal nonre

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Now we are back again, to are numbers real? Do we make them real by observing and forming patterns of our brains, or do they pre-exist as a condition of nature? Maybe the universe is not simply a simulation, but a great program? Yet, since we are part of this program we act as if its real becaus

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" > is a brute fact.. > > How can you know that. This is equivalent with saying "we will not try > to understand". > If there is something to understand about why X happened, if

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable". Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that the MWI interpret this in term of

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable". Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that the MWI interpret this in term of many world. But I am OK with your statement, a

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 Feb 2015, at 23:00, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:10:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Suppose, as people on this list have sometimes proposed, that we and the world we perceive is a digital simulation in a computer vastly more powerful than the ones we've built. S

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 08:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in- princ

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 08:06, meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"! No

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 05:03, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 , LizR wrote: >What would be a suitable underlying means by which the universe might operate, that it makes things happen at random? Huh?? You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" is a brute

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle >> unknowable"! >> >> No it's not. It

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem to have done well with it for a century. If you can accept randomness due to