On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:46:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept
> > > of
> > > a conscious observer fr
On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the
concept of
a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mech
On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of
a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I disagree. The strongest argument is th
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the
> concept of
> > a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mech
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> I think every macro system, altho
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of
> a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I disagree. The strongest argument is that it removes the need for a
mysterious nonu
On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, >wrote:
>
I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge
number of individual constituents, is
On 15/11/2017 12:44 am, smitra wrote:
On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
Within this model, Bob does not decohere until that time he is told
what Alice has found.
That is simply not true. Decoherence is not subject to a particular
person's knowledg
On 15/11/2017 12:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined.
There is no collapse, many worlds is assumed throughout. Alice splits
acc
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 4:17:29 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of
>>> indivi
On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
HOWEVER, if you prefer, forget about number theory and consider the
FINITE AGE of our universe, the observable and unobservable regions.
It's been expanding for 13.8 billion years, so its spatial extent must
be FINITE.
That only shows tha
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> >
>> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of
>> individual constituents, is in one definite state;
>
>
> No object large enough to see with
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote:
>
> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of
> individual constituents, is in one definite state;
No object large enough to see with
your unaided can is in one definite state, that is to say can be described
with a single
On 15/11/2017 1:18 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not
On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:32 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote
>>
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither
Bruno nor anyone else has
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined.
> There is no collapse, many worlds is assumed throughout. Alice splits
> according to her measurement result. Both copies of Alice go to meet
> Bob, carrying the other p
On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/20
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07
21 matches
Mail list logo