On 04 Mar 2015, at 02:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/3/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 March 2015 at 15:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020
I've just started reading that paper, and I have a (minor) problem
with this statement:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the uninterpreted quantum formalism. The
On 04 Mar 2015, at 02:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/3/2015 12:54 PM, LizR wrote:
So are these basises (bases?) something real, or just a sort of
convention like lines of latitude?
In the original theory and in MWI they are conventions.
If they're a convention why would physics care about
On 03 Mar 2015, at 04:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Maybe that's enough though, to implement a brain and observer, that
they stop interfering in at least one basis (assuming they're not
contradictory, might all bases exist?)
Bases are just coordinate systems
On 03 Mar 2015, at 03:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF
download, and otherwise links to paid versions (eg dead tree, Kindle).
You want appendix D.
On 03 Mar 2015, at 03:18, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were
supposed to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a branching can only occur if there is a
On 02 Mar 2015, at 05:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there is something to understand about why X happened, if
there is a reason for it, then X is not random. You've got to think
what random means.
Counter-example: step 3 of UDA.
On 03 Mar 2015, at 04:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2015 6:18 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Do superpositions still occur in the MWI? I thought they were
supposed to be branches (which are perhaps able to recombine) ?
In the MWI a
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the sciences
is not doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
I am not sure I commented on this. It might be the heart of the
On 01 Mar 2015, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 16:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There
On 04 Mar 2015, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:16:28PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we choose the measurement operator in a classical context. The
problem arises when we attempt to construct that classical context
from the uninterpreted quantum formalism.
On 5 March 2015 at 09:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some perverse bostromian (made by our normal descendents who
would like to fake our reality). We can test
On 3/4/2015 2:17 AM, LizR wrote:
For any other bears of little brain who don't grok this (unless I'm the only one) I
found this slightly ungrammatical layman's language summary helpful.
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/PreferredBasisProblem.html
I have to admit that I don't like the idea of
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some normal, or some
perverse bostromian (made by our normal descendents who would like to fake our
reality). We can test computationalism V perverse bostromism, if you want.
Why should
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is
the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or the logic
of the measure one, of that measure) on the halting programs.
Yes, that's what
On 3/4/2015 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems that this kind of information theoretic question might be one that
mind-as-computation could address: Why is it we can only think of the world in these
limited, classical ways (if indeed that's the case)? For example we do all our
On 3/4/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The SWE contains observables (operators) such as position, energy and momentum and so
on. What bases do we choose for these operators? The default, that no one ever
questions (to the extent that I doubt that many people realize that it is an arbitrary
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence for
reason and logic, and the study of the sciences is not doubt.
Doubt is the lack of faith!
I am not sure I
This and the next post of yours are classic. In the next one you cast doubt
on our space-based worldview - I was waiting for the next step: the
TIME_BASED doubt.
*
Bruno quoted Samiya concluding: *Doubt is the lack of faith!* - and I
could not keep my agnostic mind from reversing this into:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's inequality.
Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or
both.
Or the relevant laws of physics are time symmetric.
It is generally assumed
On 3/4/2015 4:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's
inequality.
Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:39:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But it isn't just a matter of what the observer is interested in. He
might well (as a classical physicist) be interested in the position
AND momentum of a particle - but nature forbids him defining a basis
in which he can have both.
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:39:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But it isn't just a matter of what the observer is interested in. He
might well (as a classical physicist) be interested in the position
AND momentum of a particle - but nature forbids him defining a basis
in
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some step, assuming the
reals, derivative, effectivity, etc. It go in the right conceptual
direction, (from the comp
meekerdb wrote:
One reason may be that the primary interactions important for life are
more position than momentum dependent. A tiger can only eat you if you
and the tiger are near each other. If there were beings that lived in
orbit then perhaps they would have evolved to directly
If anyone else doesn't grok what this is all about, I found this
explanation in layman's language helped firm things up. It's just a simple
(and slightly ungrammatical) overview
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
For any other bears of little brain who don't grok this (unless I'm the
only one) I found this slightly ungrammatical layman's language summary
helpful.
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/PreferredBasisProblem.html
I have to admit that I don't like the idea of turning into a jellyfish.
(Didn't that
28 matches
Mail list logo
