Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/20/2016 10:34 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the 
measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the 
polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot 
have said to have made any definite choices at all.


I think you need to learn something about decoherence , and the
emergence of the 'classical' from the 'quantum'. In the final
analysis, Alice and Bob meet to compare their results. By that stage,
their results, and their relative magnet orientations, are definite
and classical (FAPP if you wish). And that is the end result we have
to explain. All else is boondoggle.


Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong. While due 
to decoherence the macroscopic world looks classical, in reality 
(assuming MWI)  it not classical. This means that when Bob meets 
with Alice that the settings Alice chose are still not determined. 
It is only when Alice communicates to Bob what her polarizer 
settings were that Bob becomes localized in that particular sector 
of the multiverse where this is now fixed.


What if Bob misunderstands what Alice said - does he get localized in
a different universe.  Does he switch back when Alice shows him her
notebook?  What if Alice and Bob don't talk directly but instead each
whispers in Bruce's ear, but they speak urdu so Bruce doesn't know
what they said until he consults a translator?



As you write below and as I've just replied to Bruce, what matters is 
that this information does not spread faster than the speed of light. 
But in principle, the sector of the multiverse where is is located has 
a width  measured in branches of the environment, that is inversely 
proportional the the amount of reliable information he has about his 
local information. So, if he has a lot of hair on his head and has 
never counted the exact number then he is in many different branches 
where this number is different.


That seems to be variety of QBism in which case we can stop attributing 
existence to the wave function - it's just a summary of Alice's (or 
Bob's) knowledge and it "collapses" when she gains new knowledge.


Brent
The person I was when I was 3 years old is dead. He died because
too much new information was added to his brain.
 -- Saibal Mitra

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[smitra]

On 20-04-2016 07:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote:

On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the 
measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the 
polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have 
said to have made any definite choices at all.


I think you need to learn something about decoherence , and the
emergence of the 'classical' from the 'quantum'. In the final
analysis, Alice and Bob meet to compare their results. By that stage,
their results, and their relative magnet orientations, are definite
and classical (FAPP if you wish). And that is the end result we have
to explain. All else is boondoggle.


Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong. While due 
to decoherence the macroscopic world looks classical, in reality 
(assuming MWI)  it not classical. This means that when Bob meets with 
Alice that the settings Alice chose are still not determined. It is 
only when Alice communicates to Bob what her polarizer settings were 
that Bob becomes localized in that particular sector of the multiverse 
where this is now fixed.


What if Bob misunderstands what Alice said - does he get localized in
a different universe.  Does he switch back when Alice shows him her
notebook?  What if Alice and Bob don't talk directly but instead each
whispers in Bruce's ear, but they speak urdu so Bruce doesn't know
what they said until he consults a translator?



As you write below and as I've just replied to Bruce, what matters is 
that this information does not spread faster than the speed of light. 
But in principle, the sector of the multiverse where is is located has a 
width  measured in branches of the environment, that is inversely 
proportional the the amount of reliable information he has about his 
local information. So, if he has a lot of hair on his head and has never 
counted the exact number then he is in many different branches where 
this number is different.



Saibal


If Bob were to be imagined being located in that particular branch 
were Alice had made definite choices and had made definite 
observations, then that implies the existence of an observable for Bob 
that only acts on himself that will yield the exact details of what 
Alice has done. So, Bob could in principle have psychic powers, the 
information of what Alice did would already be present in his brain 
before Alice communicates these to him!


Or, per decoherence, the information was already spread throughout the
environment (c.f. buckyball experiment) and the environments with
results for which the Born probability is zero are unobservable.

Brent



Obviously, Bob's brain does not have any information about what Alice 
did until the details are communicated to him. So, Bob's mind is 
identical across the many branches where Alice and, due to 
decoherence, the local environment is different. So, in the experiment 
the effectively classical communication is not at all trivial, in the 
MWI it is a crucial step localizing the observers in the multiverse as 
where the measurements of the spins.


Saibal







Bruce

In some particular sector where Alice made some particular result 
and found some particular result, she knows that Bob's spin state. 
But Bob lives in larger sector of the multiverse which includes 
sectors where Alic had made different choices.


 Alice and Bob communicating later is not some trivial exchange of 
information that existed a priori, it leads to a further de-facto 
collapse of the wavefunction.


There isn't anything more to this that Alice measuring the spin of 
an electron in a lab, and then letting Bob who doesn't know what 
direction the spin was measured in, doing another measurement.


Saibal




--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[smitra]

On 20-04-2016 07:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote:


On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote:
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the
measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the
polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have
said to have made any definite choices at all.

I think you need to learn something about decoherence , and the
emergence of the 'classical' from the 'quantum'. In the final
analysis, Alice and Bob meet to compare their results. By that
stage,
their results, and their relative magnet orientations, are definite

and classical (FAPP if you wish). And that is the end result we
have
to explain. All else is boondoggle.


 Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong.
 Actually, I think that in order for MWI to make any sense at all, the
separation of worlds has to be absolute, not just FAPP -- but that is
another argument.


While due to decoherence the macroscopic world looks classical, in
reality (assuming MWI) it not classical. This means that when Bob
meets with Alice that the settings Alice chose are still not
determined. It is only when Alice communicates to Bob what her
polarizer settings were


 If Alice's setting are not determined, how can she communicate to Bob
what they were? Decoherence works for both Alice and Bob separately,
and long before they meet. Both have definite magnet settings and
definite results by then -- that is decoherence at work.


They get split up in different branches where they make definite choices 
and find definite outcomes. From Bob's perspective all the different 
sectors for Alice are in play until he hears from her what she did and 
what she found. Decoherence does not get rid of the different branches.





that Bob becomes localized in that particular sector of the
multiverse where this is now fixed.


 So, decoherence ensures that long before A and B meet, there are only
ffour worlds in the general case, ++, +-, -+, and --. It is the fact
these these possibilities have different probabilities that is to be
explained, and you have not explained that.


The mistake made here is to write down the global situation like this. 
Locally Alice finds herself in one particular situation where she made a 
particular choice for the polarizer and found a particular outcome of 
the spin measurement result. If she found spin up with her polarizer 
oriented in some particular direction, then from the perspective of her 
branch, Bob is to be described by a state of the form:


|Bob>|->

where |-> is the spin state relative to Alice's polarizer setting.

Now Bob and his local environment are in some unknown quantum state. 
When doing practical calculations in quantum mechanics we would use 
density matrices to calculate probabilities, but in principle we have to 
assume that Bob's sector is described by some unknown pure state which 
evolves in time, the measurement that Bob performs must then be 
described as Bob splitting up into many different branches.


Bob's sector after Bob performs his measurement is thus described by 
Alice as a superposition of many different effectively decoherent 
branches, in each branch Bob chose some definite polarizer setting and 
found some result. But Alice cannot pretend that in her sector, only a 
single branch for Bob exists.


So, all the different Bob's with different probabilities of finding spin 
up and spin down depending on his choice of the polarizer exist. If you 
pick only that branch where Bob  happens to have chosen his polarizer 
setting in the same or opposite way as Alice, then that Bob could only 
have found one particular result. But that's not the physical situation 
that Alice is dealing with. And Bob's own perspective is different from 
Alice, as from his point of view he finds himself in some branch where 
Alice exists in many different branches.


Only when they communicate can each branch of Alice contain only one 
branch of Bob and vice versa. Even if you assume that decoherence would 
lead to this, which is in principle possible, then one still has to take 
into account that decoherence can only act within the future light cone, 
so Bob's sector won't decohere all the way into Alice's sector until 
that time that Alice could have send a message at the speed of light to 
Bob. The possible elimination of two out of the four possibilities can 
thus only happen in a local way.





Obviously, Bob's brain does not have any information about what
Alice did until the details are communicated to him. So, Bob's mind
is identical across the many branches where Alice and, due to
decoherence, the local environment is different. So, in the
experiment the effectively classical communication is not at all
trivial, in the MWI it is a crucial step localizing the observers in
the multiverse as where the measurements of the spins.


 So classical communication has quantum effects? 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Bruce Kellett]

On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:


So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have
come from an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in
your simulation. It has only ever been used to link the copies of
Alice and Bob, the statistics that they observe come entirely from
what you happen to put in you accumulator for each setting of the
relative orientations.


Saying the idea of a singlet pair "has not been used anywhere in your 
simulation" and then saying it has "been used to link the copies of 
Alice and Bob" seems like a contradiction--isn't the linking itself 
part of the simulation?
No, there is no contradiction. You have used the fact that they are 
measuring parts of an entangled system only to link the sets of results. 
Nowhere have you used the quantum properties of the entangled singlet 
pair in the simulation to calculate the probabilities: you have imposed 
those probabilities from outside by fiat. One might have well have used 
times read on synchronized clocks to link the experiments -- just as I 
used the fact of writing on a single token to show that the results were 
part of the same experiment.


After all, getting a message from Bob is part of the simulated world 
that Alice experiences, just as much as her own measurement. What we 
have here is just a single distributed simulation being run on 
multiple computers computing different parts of it in parallel, and 
communicating data in order to determine interactions between those 
parts. Any local physics model can be simulated in such a way, 
including ones that don't involve "copies" existing in parallel in a 
given region--for example, space can be divided into a cubic grid and 
each computer can compute the internal dynamics in each cube, and 
computers that simulate cubes that share a face in common can share 
there data so that particles or waves leaving one cube through a given 
face will appear in the neighboring cube from the same face. This 
would still be one big simulation, just computed in a distributed way. 
And the fact that you *can* distribute the computation of the whole 
universe into a bunch of local sub-simulations that communicate only 
with their neighbors is true if and only if the laws of physics 
governing your universe are "local" ones.


I agree that you can generate the required statistics locally in
this way. In fact, I can do it even more simply by taking a number
of urns and labelling each with a particular relative orientation,
say parallel, antiparallel, 90 degrees, and so on. In the
"parallel" urn I place a number of tokens labeled (A+B-) and an
equal number labelled (A-B+). In the "antiparallel" urn, I place a
number of tokens labelled (A+B+), and an equal number labelled
(A-B-). In the "90 degree" urn I place a number of tokens labelled
(A+B+), an equal number labelled (A+B-), an equal number labelled
(A-B+), and finally an equal number labelled (A-B-).


I don't see how your method would be a *local* simulation though. In 
order for it to be local, you'd need to set things up so Alice first 
picks her result from one of three urns at her location, and Bob first 
picks his result from one of three urns at his location, and they can 
see the result of their own pick before either one knows which urn the 
other one picked from.


No, I am simulating the system as it stands after Alice and Bob have 
communicated, written their results on the tokens, and put them in the 
appropriate urns. All completely local. The point is that then a third 
party can come along and discover the statistics of their results by 
pulling sequences of tokens, at random, from the urn relating to the 
relative orientation of interest. The non-locality comes from the fact 
that the quantum singlet state gives a non-local connection between A 
and B in order that that their actual results can give the same 
statistics as the ones I generated by hand above. The actual quantum 
calculation of the probabilities is explicitly non-local. You have, 
somehow, to find an alternative way of generating these statistics. And 
that you have not done.


Since you are accumulating joint results according to the statistics 
that you have calculated on the basis of standard quantum mechanics, 
completely independently of the properties of the actual singlets states 
that Alice and Bob measure, my example is exactly equivalent to yours.




But that is precisely what you toy model does. It has absolutely
no connection with EPR or real experiments. One could generate any
arbitrary set of statistics to satisfy any theory whatsoever by
this method. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing about the
locality or otherwise of EPR.



Would you agree that in my toy model the results at each location can 
be generated 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Hi Samya,
>
> I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological
> point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not
> astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have
> explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is close
> to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the earlier
> centuries).
>
> I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed my
> feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also with
> respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which *is* a sign
> of genuine faith in the machine's faith).
>
> Do you know them?
>

I didn't know about this sect, but just read it up on Wikipedia. There are
several sects in Islam, as in all other religions. Though I disagree with
their beliefs, I will not comment upon it or criticise it, as I am held
back by these verses of the Quran:

Indeed, those who divide their religion and become sects, you are not with
them in anything. Only their affair (is) with Allah, then He will inform
them of what they used to do.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/6/159/

And hold firmly to (the) rope (of) Allah all together and (do) not be
divided. And remember (the) Favor (of) Allah on you when you were enemies
then He made friendship between your hearts then you became by His Favor
brothers. And you were on (the) brink (of) pit of the Fire then He saved
you from it. Thus Allah makes clear for you His Verses so that you may (be)
guided.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/3/103/


>
> I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate the
> weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the Sunni
> instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can often use the
> "argument" of force (as we can see today in some countries, alas).
>
>
> http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to
>
> On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not obligatory,
>

I agree that the veil is not obligatory. It is not even ordained to
ordinary Muslims in the Quran. The veil or partition was ordained upon the
believers as regards to the Prophet's wives in Chapter 33:

O you who believe! (Do) not enter (the) houses (of) the Prophet except when
permission is given to you for a meal, without awaiting its preparation.
But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, then
disperse and not seeking to remain for a conversation. Indeed, that was
troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of (dismissing) you. But Allah is not
shy of the truth. *And when you ask them (for) anything then ask them from
behind a screen. That (is) purer for your hearts and their hearts.* And not
is for you that you trouble (the) Messenger (of) Allah and not that you
should marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that is near Allah an
enormity.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/53/

Consider the above in the light of these verses which precede verse 53 in
the same chapter:

The Prophet (is) closer to the believers than their own selves, and his
wives (are) their mothers. And possessors (of) relationships, some of them
(are) closer to another in (the) Decree (of) Allah than the believers and
the emigrants, except that you do to your friends a kindness. That is in
the Book written.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/6/

O wives (of) the Prophet! You are not like anyone among the women. If you
fear (Allah), then (do) not be soft in speech, lest should be moved with he
who, in his heart (is) a disease, but say a word appropriate. And stay in
your houses and (do) not display yourselves (as was the) display (of the
times of) ignorance the former. And establish the prayer and give zakah and
obey Allah and His Messenger. Only Allah wishes to remove from you the
impurity, (O) People (of) the House! And to purify you (with thorough)
purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of (the) Verses
(of) Allah and the wisdom. Indeed, Allah is All-Subtle, All-Aware. Indeed,
the Muslim men and the Muslimen, and the believing men and the believing
women, and the obedient men and the obedient women, and the truthful men
and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the
humble men and the humble women, and the men who give charity and the women
who give charity and the men who fast and the women who fast, and the men
who guard their chastity and the women who guard (it), and the men who
remember Allah much and the women who remember Allah has prepared for them
forgiveness and a reward great.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/32/ ;
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/33/ ;
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/34/ ;
http://islamawakened.com/quran/33/35/

Relevant to the veil is also the issue of Head Cover. Someone on another
list raised a question about head cover a while back. This is how I
understand it: 

Re: Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

[John Mikes]

Dear Saibal,

what makes you think that we can deduct (know??) anything rightfully about
the REAL WORLD into our feable human mind? You may LIKE more the QM than
the classical versions, but that is no verification.

We obtain(ed) SOME input about the 'WORLD' and deposited it adjusted to the
capabilities of the human mind (at THAT time) APPLYING human logic (math?)
and the content earlier deposited on the subjects.

John Mikes



On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:08 PM, smitra  wrote:

> The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the macroscopic
> level, quantum mechanics does not become equivalent to classical physics at
> all (there is no way an infinite dimensional Hilbert space will somehow
> reduce to a classical phase space), what happens is that the results of
> computations can be performed by pretending that classical mechanics is
> correct, with impunity.
>
> So, whenever classical concepts are introduced, the results may be good
> enough for the physical quantities that one computes, for interpretational
> issues there can be problems.
>
>
> As pointed out by Vaidman here:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6169
>
> This is also the case for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. So, the effect is
> obviously real, but the purported non-locality is just an artifact of
> classical reasoning.
>
> Saibal
>
> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:21 AM, smitra  wrote:

>
​> ​
> Invoking FAPP is precisely where your argument goes wrong.


​After looking up the meaning of that unfamiliar technical term I would
have to agree.​


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fapp


​ 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​> ​logically, it is conceivable to have structure containing themselves,
>>
>>
> ​>> ​
>> ​Fine, but it is not logical to have something that is not part of itself
>> be part of itself; like a place that is not part of the multiverse you can
>> ​stand on to look at it from the outside. The multiverse has no outside.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That is why Nagel called it the point of view of nowhere
>

​Then that is precisely where that point of view should be of interest,
nowhere.​

​ And that is also the only place where Nagel's philosophy is worth reading.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Jesse Mazer]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:
>
> So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from
> an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It
> has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and Bob, the statistics
> that they observe come entirely from what you happen to put in you
> accumulator for each setting of the relative orientations.
>

Saying the idea of a singlet pair "has not been used anywhere in your
simulation" and then saying it has "been used to link the copies of Alice
and Bob" seems like a contradiction--isn't the linking itself part of the
simulation? After all, getting a message from Bob is part of the simulated
world that Alice experiences, just as much as her own measurement. What we
have here is just a single distributed simulation being run on multiple
computers computing different parts of it in parallel, and communicating
data in order to determine interactions between those parts. Any local
physics model can be simulated in such a way, including ones that don't
involve "copies" existing in parallel in a given region--for example, space
can be divided into a cubic grid and each computer can compute the internal
dynamics in each cube, and computers that simulate cubes that share a face
in common can share there data so that particles or waves leaving one cube
through a given face will appear in the neighboring cube from the same
face. This would still be one big simulation, just computed in a
distributed way. And the fact that you *can* distribute the computation of
the whole universe into a bunch of local sub-simulations that communicate
only with their neighbors is true if and only if the laws of physics
governing your universe are "local" ones.



>
> I agree that you can generate the required statistics locally in this way.
> In fact, I can do it even more simply by taking a number of urns and
> labelling each with a particular relative orientation, say parallel,
> antiparallel, 90 degrees, and so on. In the "parallel" urn I place a number
> of tokens labeled (A+B-) and an equal number labelled (A-B+). In the
> "antiparallel" urn, I place a number of tokens labelled (A+B+), and an
> equal number labelled (A-B-). In the "90 degree" urn I place a number of
> tokens labelled (A+B+), an equal number labelled (A+B-), an equal number
> labelled (A-B+), and finally an equal number labelled (A-B-).
>

I don't see how your method would be a *local* simulation though. In order
for it to be local, you'd need to set things up so Alice first picks her
result from one of three urns at her location, and Bob first picks his
result from one of three urns at his location, and they can see the result
of their own pick before either one knows which urn the other one picked
from.


> But that is precisely what you toy model does. It has absolutely no
> connection with EPR or real experiments. One could generate any arbitrary
> set of statistics to satisfy any theory whatsoever by this method. You have
> demonstrated absolutely nothing about the locality or otherwise of EPR.
>


Would you agree that in my toy model the results at each location can be
generated in realtime (each experimenter finds out their own result before
finding out the other one's result, and before they have any way of knowing
what detector setting the other one used), and in a local way (the rule
that generates a result that appears at a particular position and time
doesn't depend on anything outside the past light cone of that event), and
that the subjective probabilities for each experimenter match those of the
EPR experiment? If you agree but think your urn model is doing the same,
please explain it in more detail because as I said, your short description
above doesn't seem to me to have these characteristics.

Jesse

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Do you have any essays floating about, that you have written concerning machine 
theology (Lobian machines I am guessing)? 



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 20, 2016 3:21 am
Subject: Bektashi Alevi




Hi Samya,


I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological point of 
view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not astonishing given that 
they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have explained that the mathematical 
theology of the universal machine is close to Neoplatonism, and also to the 
Neopythagoreanism of the earlier centuries).


I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed my 
feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also with 
respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which *is* a sign of 
genuine faith in the machine's faith).


Do you know them? 


I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate the weight 
of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the Sunni instead, 
which are rarely open to other religion and can often use the "argument" of 
force (as we can see today in some countries, alas).


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to


On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not obligatory, and 
that the bektashi woman can marry without any problem a man with another 
religion. The woman bektashi prays together with the man, which is nice, but 
also religiously serious if I can say. Woman are treated like man. They are 
egalitarian, and have often fight against the use of authority in religion and 
politics. Nor do they pray in the direction of the Mecca.


The Alevi (alone) people have originally claim that their religion is anterior 
to Islam, despite close to  Shi'ism after the influence of Muhammad and Ali 
(Muhammad's nephew and sun in law). There are obvious link with Zoroastrism 
(the "mother" of the abrahamic religion).


I find them very interesting. The main point closer to machine's theology, is 
that they have a non literal, mystic interpretation of the Quran, which is 
directly reflected in their spiritual flexibility and openness to *apparently 
different* faith. They understand that sacred texts are parabola to help the 
attempt to the personal experience of the divine, which is very often 
discouraged if not forbidden once a religion is institutionalized.


Best,


Bruno







 
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Samya,

I already told you that Soufism is, in Islam, and from the theological  
point of view, the closer to the machine's theology, which is not  
astonishing given that they are closer to Neoplatonism too (and I have  
explained that the mathematical theology of the universal machine is  
close to Neoplatonism, and also to the Neopythagoreanism of the  
earlier centuries).


I have discovered the Alevi Bektashi sects since, and they confirmed  
my feeling, not only with respect to the theological science, but also  
with respect to practice and their openness to other religion (which  
*is* a sign of genuine faith in the machine's faith).


Do you know them?

I realise also that Ataturk made a big mistake. Wanting to eliminate  
the weight of religion in Turkey, he persecuted them and installed the  
Sunni instead, which are rarely open to other religion and can often  
use the "argument" of force (as we can see today in some countries,  
alas).


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/2340/the-bektashi-alevi-continuum-from-the-balkans-to

On the french wikipedia, they assert also that the veil is not  
obligatory, and that the bektashi woman can marry without any problem  
a man with another religion. The woman bektashi prays together with  
the man, which is nice, but also religiously serious if I can say.  
Woman are treated like man. They are egalitarian, and have often fight  
against the use of authority in religion and politics. Nor do they  
pray in the direction of the Mecca.


The Alevi (alone) people have originally claim that their religion is  
anterior to Islam, despite close to  Shi'ism after the influence of  
Muhammad and Ali (Muhammad's nephew and sun in law). There are obvious  
link with Zoroastrism (the "mother" of the abrahamic religion).


I find them very interesting. The main point closer to machine's  
theology, is that they have a non literal, mystic interpretation of  
the Quran, which is directly reflected in their spiritual flexibility  
and openness to *apparently different* faith. They understand that  
sacred texts are parabola to help the attempt to the personal  
experience of the divine, which is very often discouraged if not  
forbidden once a religion is institutionalized.


Best,

Bruno



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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.