Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 7:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Jason Resch wrote:

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: >> >> Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kelle

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett < >> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: >> >> Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 7:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb All it requires is denying there is magic involved in the first-person view. That assumes that the first pers

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 8:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR w

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> So then the mystery of the Born rule is solved. I don't see >>> why/how add

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 7:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 8:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: So then the mystery of the Born rule is solved. I don't see why/how adding collapse solves anything. I[t] adds that one of the probable s

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >>> >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> Jason Resch wrote: >> >> There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a >> big problem

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Jason Resch wrote: There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem defining collapse. Collapse is easily defined. So at what point d

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote: But it assumes the Born rule provides the relative measure - which is more than just the SWE. You can solve the problem of branch counting by assuming infinitely many parallel worlds - but then that raises the problem of defining "probabi

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >>> >>> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >>> >> >> Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability >> i

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb > wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: > >> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >> >> Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability >> interpretation to the density matrix.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: > > 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

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:55:26PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Does a measuring apparatus always have to be eigenvalue of some position operator, though? If you are doing quantum mechanics, yes. The result of any measurement is an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

On 2/26/2015 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 13:04, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

On 27 February 2015 at 13:04, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: > >> Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably >> this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, >> ahem, position - that all measurements made using a physi

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

On 2/26/2015 3:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb > wrote: So I reiterate my objection that using "God" is not only obfuscating your avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the basis of reality. I quite

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:24:02PM +1300, LizR wrote: > Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably this > just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, > ahem, position - that all measurements made using a physical apparatus are > going to resolv

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

On 2/26/2015 3:24 PM, LizR wrote: Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, ahem, position - that all measurements made using a physical apparatus are going to resolve into the position of s

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb > wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either

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

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:33:59PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > So I reiterate my objection that using "God" is not only obfuscating your > > avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the > > basis of reality. > > > > I q

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

On 27 February 2015 at 09:52, meekerdb wrote: > > So I reiterate my objection that using "God" is not only obfuscating your > avowed meaning it is also wrong to say it's what the Greeks meant by the > basis of reality. > I quite like "Tao" - but some (perhaps not on this list) would no doubt fin

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

On 27 February 2015 at 09:38, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that >> case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given (more >> than one times), it is an exercise for high s

Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

Eek! Now I'm worried that if protein folding goes just a bit too far, my cells will collapse into a black hole. -- 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 t

Re: Measurements always involve the position basis?

Can you explain the problem a bit more for us dummies? ISTM - probably this just shows I don't understand the problem, but I may as well state my, ahem, position - that all measurements made using a physical apparatus are going to resolve into the position of something, e.g. the position of a point

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: > MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. > > Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability > interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the > need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived fr

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 February 2015 at 23:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: > > 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

Measurements always involve the position basis?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:55:26PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >Does a measuring apparatus always have to be eigenvalue of some > >position operator, though? > > If you are doing quantum mechanics, yes. The result of any > measurement is an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator, and the >

Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

Of course, this is what Australia's John Mattick has been saying for decades (I heard him talk on this nearly 15 years ago, for instance, and he'd been railing at the establishment sometime before that). But "wormholes"? Really? Someone in marketing has been given far too liberal a rein. Cheers

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: 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

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

On 2/26/2015 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fro the greek, the existence of God is a quasi-triviality, because God, by definition, is the reality that we search. Then the real question is what is the nature of God? A person? A physical thing? A mathematical thing? A first principle, etc. The Gr

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

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > It is very simple. If we are machine, we are duplicable, and in that > case, using the precise (3p) definition of 3p and 1p pov I have given (more > than one times), it is an exercise for high school students, as Kim > explained once, using combinatoric

FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 26 Feb 2015, at 18:47, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." > Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible. As m

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

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > There is another quote from Asimov that I quite like: >> "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever >> conceived." > > > > Which confirms again how much the atheist needs the bible. > As much as a tampon factory needs a sackfu

RE: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

[Have been very busy on a new software project and have not had time to follow and participate on this list... such an active list :). ] Came across this article and found it interesting also from an information science point of view -- taking the perspective of DNA being a fairly dynamic inform

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

John, consider it a working theory that awaits falsification, if it can be falsified. You have have great questions, for which there are no great answers. What I will claim, is that of all of science, over the last 350 years, computer electronics has made the greatest progress, and seems to be e

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 Feb 2015, at 12:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: 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 unknowable". W

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

On 26 Feb 2015, at 02:24, John Clark wrote: 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

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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 o

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell Standish wrote: 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 n

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

On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:55, meekerdb wrote: 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 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 existen

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

On 25 Feb 2015, at 22:08, LizR wrote: 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 meaningfu

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: 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 some

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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