Re: Dreamless Sleep?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/1/2017 6:35 PM, David Nyman wrote:



I think it likely that ability in humans co-evolved with the
development of language.  Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The
Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?


You betcha! A paradigm shifter if ever I read one though it's many 
years since. It always struck me as perfectly plausible in general 
direction even if no particular detail of Jaynes's speculations were 
precisely accurate.


Yeah, I started it with the attitude, "That's an interesting idea but 
there couldn't possibly be any evidence to support it even if it's 
true."  But when I finished it I thought, "Damn, he didn't prove his 
theory but he did pretty well supporting it."


Brent

--
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[David Nyman]

On 2 Dec 2017 01:57, "Brent Meeker"  wrote:



On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote:

On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively
>> reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point you
>> will intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at least
>> un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine formulating an
>> articulate thought or possibly even assembling a coherent series of sense
>> impressions or intuitions.
>>
>> Including the coherent thought that you have become effectively
>> 'unconscious'.
>>
>
> ​Yes indeed. Of course you realised that I meant "at some point you will
> intuit" only with reference to the relevant point in the thought
> experiment​, not to the imagined situation itself. In the latter case my
> contention was that "at some (i.e. the corresponding) point" you would in
> effect have become incapable of coherently intuiting even the thought of
> your 'lost consciousness', as you suggest.
>
>
> Jeff Hawkins discusses this in his book "On Intelligence".  He calls his
> model of intelligence memory+prediction and it is based more on brain
> neurophysiology and research than on computation (although he's a computer
> guy, inventor the Palm Pilot).
>

​Yes, that's interesting. From the evolutionary standpoint, leaving aside
distinctions of phenomenal versus 'access' consciousness, one might
speculate that the primary utility of conscious deliberation is that of
more accurate prediction of the future and consequently improved individual
and species survivability.


In Hawkins model the lower layers of the neocortex are continually
predicting what they will receive from the perceptive organs.  If a layer's
prediction fails, the input is passed up to the next layer and each layer
has more extensive lateral connections than the layer below it.  So
consciousness is emergent engagement of the top layer; although Hawkins
doesn't speculate much about this as he is more interested in intelligence
than consciousness.


I've been reading a book of Jonathan Haidt's called "The Righteous Mind".
One of the speculations based on his research into what he calls moral
intuitions is the importance to human evolutionary success of 'shared
intentionality'. This is the ability to intuit, share and enact common
purposes with others.

It is striking that other primates apparently have the ability to copy or
even originate certain behaviours of benefit to themselves individually but
not to intuit and hence share in others' intentions to the point of
benefitting significantly from novel forms of group cooperation. Plausibly
this is indeed related, amongst other neurocognitive deficits, to a less
than human capacity to retain complex memories and hence make sophisticated
extrapolations from a rich repertoire of experience.


I think it likely that ability in humans co-evolved with the development of
language.  Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in
the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?


You betcha! A paradigm shifter if ever I read one though it's many years
since. It always struck me as perfectly plausible in general direction even
if no particular detail of Jaynes's speculations were precisely accurate.

David


Brent

-- 
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:

On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker > wrote:



On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:


Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you
progressively reduce the duration of your effective short
term memory, at some point you will intuit that you have
become effectively 'unconscious', or at least
un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine
formulating an articulate thought or possibly even
assembling a coherent series of sense impressions or intuitions.

Including the coherent thought that you have become
effectively 'unconscious'.


​Yes indeed. Of course you realised that I meant "at some point
you will intuit" only with reference to the relevant point in the
thought experiment​, not to the imagined situation itself. In the
latter case my contention was that "at some (i.e. the
corresponding) point" you would in effect have become incapable
of coherently intuiting even the thought of your 'lost
consciousness', as you suggest.


Jeff Hawkins discusses this in his book "On Intelligence".  He
calls his model of intelligence memory+prediction and it is based
more on brain neurophysiology and research than on computation
(although he's a computer guy, inventor the Palm Pilot).


​Yes, that's interesting. From the evolutionary standpoint, leaving 
aside distinctions of phenomenal versus 'access' consciousness, one 
might speculate that the primary utility of conscious deliberation is 
that of more accurate prediction of the future and consequently 
improved individual and species survivability.


In Hawkins model the lower layers of the neocortex are continually 
predicting what they will receive from the perceptive organs.  If a 
layer's prediction fails, the input is passed up to the next layer and 
each layer has more extensive lateral connections than the layer below 
it.  So consciousness is emergent engagement of the top layer; although 
Hawkins doesn't speculate much about this as he is more interested in 
intelligence than consciousness.


I've been reading a book of Jonathan Haidt's called "The Righteous 
Mind". One of the speculations based on his research into what he 
calls moral intuitions is the importance to human evolutionary success 
of 'shared intentionality'. This is the ability to intuit, share and 
enact common purposes with others.


It is striking that other primates apparently have the ability to copy 
or even originate certain behaviours of benefit to themselves 
individually but not to intuit and hence share in others' intentions 
to the point of benefitting significantly from novel forms of group 
cooperation. Plausibly this is indeed related, amongst other 
neurocognitive deficits, to a less than human capacity to retain 
complex memories and hence make sophisticated extrapolations from a 
rich repertoire of experience.


I think it likely that ability in humans co-evolved with the development 
of language.  Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of 
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?


Brent

--
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[David Nyman]

On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively
>> reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point you
>> will intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at least
>> un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine formulating an
>> articulate thought or possibly even assembling a coherent series of sense
>> impressions or intuitions.
>>
>> Including the coherent thought that you have become effectively
>> 'unconscious'.
>>
>
> ​Yes indeed. Of course you realised that I meant "at some point you will
> intuit" only with reference to the relevant point in the thought
> experiment​, not to the imagined situation itself. In the latter case my
> contention was that "at some (i.e. the corresponding) point" you would in
> effect have become incapable of coherently intuiting even the thought of
> your 'lost consciousness', as you suggest.
>
>
> Jeff Hawkins discusses this in his book "On Intelligence".  He calls his
> model of intelligence memory+prediction and it is based more on brain
> neurophysiology and research than on computation (although he's a computer
> guy, inventor the Palm Pilot).
>

​Yes, that's interesting. From the evolutionary standpoint, leaving aside
distinctions of phenomenal versus 'access' consciousness, one might
speculate that the primary utility of conscious deliberation is that of
more accurate prediction of the future and consequently improved individual
and species survivability. I've been reading a book of Jonathan Haidt's
called "The Righteous Mind". One of the speculations based on his research
into what he calls moral intuitions is the importance to human evolutionary
success of 'shared intentionality'. This is the ability to intuit, share
and enact common purposes with others.

It is striking that other primates apparently have the ability to copy or
even originate certain behaviours of benefit to themselves individually but
not to intuit and hence share in others' intentions to the point of
benefitting significantly from novel forms of group cooperation. Plausibly
this is indeed related, amongst other neurocognitive deficits, to a less
than human capacity to retain complex memories and hence make sophisticated
extrapolations from a rich repertoire of experience.

David


>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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: US vs North Korea

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:38:39PM -0800, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:54:59 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 1 déc. 2017 23:02,  a écrit :
> >
> >
> > What does "everything" mean? AG 
> >
> >
> > Theory of everything... Not that you can discuss whatever comes to your 
> > mind... There are other lists if you want to talk about politics...
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> 
> It's named an "everything" list. Anyway, as I stated, this will be an 
> exception. Try being tolerant. AG 

In particular, ensemble theories of everything. For an introduction,
see my book "Theory of Nothing", or Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".

But other "theories of everything" are occasionally discussed as
well. But please, no politicts! 

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:


Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you
progressively reduce the duration of your effective short term
memory, at some point you will intuit that you have become
effectively 'unconscious', or at least un-self-conscious, as you
will be unable to imagine formulating an articulate thought or
possibly even assembling a coherent series of sense impressions
or intuitions.

Including the coherent thought that you have become effectively
'unconscious'.


​Yes indeed. Of course you realised that I meant "at some point you 
will intuit" only with reference to the relevant point in the thought 
experiment​, not to the imagined situation itself. In the latter case 
my contention was that "at some (i.e. the corresponding) point" you 
would in effect have become incapable of coherently intuiting even the 
thought of your 'lost consciousness', as you suggest.


Jeff Hawkins discusses this in his book "On Intelligence".  He calls his 
model of intelligence memory+prediction and it is based more on brain 
neurophysiology and research than on computation (although he's a 
computer guy, inventor the Palm Pilot).


Brent

--
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[David Nyman]

On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively
> reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point you
> will intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at least
> un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine formulating an
> articulate thought or possibly even assembling a coherent series of sense
> impressions or intuitions.
>
> Including the coherent thought that you have become effectively
> 'unconscious'.
>

​Yes indeed. Of course you realised that I meant "at some point you will
intuit" only with reference to the relevant point in the thought
experiment​, not to the imagined situation itself. In the latter case my
contention was that "at some (i.e. the corresponding) point" you would in
effect have become incapable of coherently intuiting even the thought of
your 'lost consciousness', as you suggest.

David


>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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: Dreamless Sleep?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote:


Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively 
reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point 
you will intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at 
least un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine formulating 
an articulate thought or possibly even assembling a coherent series of 
sense impressions or intuitions.
Including the coherent thought that you have become effectively 
'unconscious'.


Brent

--
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: Dreamless Sleep?

[David Nyman]

On 1 December 2017 at 17:45, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 28 Nov 2017, at 01:28, David Nyman wrote:
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-swi
> tch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wonderful! Thanks! It confirms Mechanism, both the one of Descartes and
> the "theology" of the machine. And the salvia plant!
>
> I have always personally suspect this "experientially", noticing that the
> reason we "miss" it is that it very hard to memorize. It confirms the idea
> that non-consciousness is relative amnesia, less neurons makes you more
> conscious, the brain is something like a filter, nature is a product of
> contemplation (Plotinus!),...
>

​Yes, funnily ​enough I've always strongly suspected there to be a very
tight relation between what we mean by consciousness, or at least
self-consciousness, and certain features of memory. One reason was
suggested by clinical cases of catastrophic damage to short term memory,
where anything beyond the last five minutes or so is immediately forgotten.
In one case featured in a BBC documentary, the unfortunate sufferer
witnessed a video of himself conducting an orchestra (he was a professional
musician and oddly enough could still conduct music with which he was
already familiar). Since he had no memory of having done it, and ultimately
conceding that it was indeed himself that he was witnessing, he concluded
"Then I must have been unconscious".

Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively reduce
the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point you will
intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at least
un-self-conscious, as you will be unable to imagine formulating an
articulate thought or possibly even assembling a coherent series of sense
impressions or intuitions. On reflection, phenomenal consciousness could
plausibly be characterised in essence as the successive, coherent
construction and 'memorisation' of momentary, dynamical perspectives. It is
only memory that links and weaves such momentary phenomenal perspectives
into coherent spatial-temporal narratives.

David


> Since 2008 I write in a diary all my salvia experiences, but also tobacco
> experience, occasional cannabis experience, occasional alcohol experiences,
> and the usual coffee experiences and actually any pertinent, for the
> consciousness study, experiences (as they all influences the outcomes).
> Since 2008, the first salvia experience, the mentions of the deep-sleep
> consciousness experiences has grown up systematically, and since some years
> they are mentionned almost every morning.  It is very weird. I made once
> two "perpendicular sort-of-dreams", which brought my attention on relations
> between quantum logic and octonions, which I found also in a very
> interesting paper by John Baes. This plunges me back in my feeling that
> little numbers could quickly play a special role, like the number 24, and
> the exceptional simple groups, and relation between groups of permutations
> of solution of diophantine polynomials. We understand the metamathematical
> content of arithmetic through big numbers
> (indeed Gödel represented "2+2=4", that is
>
> "ffa+ffa=a" , (with f, a, +, = equal to even numbers: f is 3, a is 5,
> + is 7, = is 9)
>
> by
>
> (2^f)(3^f)(5^a)(7^+)(11^f)(13^f)(17^a)(19^=)(23^f)(29^f)(31^f)(37^f)(39^a)
>
> which is an astromical numbers. Today we use efficient coding, of course,
> which adds intensional and modal relations. But it could be that little
> numbers have already a rich and deep metamathematical content, arithmetic
> would understand itself more quickly than our apparent current detour
> through a quantum vacuum fluctuation going wrong make us to think...
>
> Otto Rossler once summed up Descartes Mechanism with "consciousness is a
> prison". Mechanism seems a bit pernicious, as it predicts somehow that we
> might get the solution of the mind-body problem when we die, or "sleep"
> deep enough (cf Shakespeare), unfortunately we don't memorize, and our
> billions years of prejudices can strikes back in a second.
>
> Very interesting (and relevant) studies!
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> 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 

Re: US vs North Korea

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 10:54:59 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 1 déc. 2017 23:02,  a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:58:13 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> This is completely off-topic for this list. There are gazillions of 
>> discussions going on about this elswhere
>>
>> Kim Jones 
>>
>
> What does "everything" mean? AG 
>
>
> Theory of everything... Not that you can discuss whatever comes to your 
> mind... There are other lists if you want to talk about politics...
>
> Quentin
>

It's named an "everything" list. Anyway, as I stated, this will be an 
exception. Try being tolerant. AG 

>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Dec 2017, at 10:05 pm, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is 
>> this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will 
>> say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United 
>> States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 
>>> months. TIA, AG
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: US vs North Korea

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le 1 déc. 2017 23:02,  a écrit :



On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:58:13 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> This is completely off-topic for this list. There are gazillions of
> discussions going on about this elswhere
>
> Kim Jones
>

What does "everything" mean? AG


Theory of everything... Not that you can discuss whatever comes to your
mind... There are other lists if you want to talk about politics...

Quentin


>
>
> On 1 Dec 2017, at 10:05 pm, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>
> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is
> this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will
> say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United
> States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12
>> months. TIA, AG
>>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.

-- 
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: US vs North Korea

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Think THAAD and AEGIS  or as I call them, THAAD and Jeremy 



-Original Message-
From: agrayson2000 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 8:51 pm
Subject: US vs North Korea



Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 months. 
TIA, AG


-- 
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: US vs North Korea

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 8:58:13 PM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> This is completely off-topic for this list. There are gazillions of 
> discussions going on about this elswhere
>
> Kim Jones 
>

What does "everything" mean? AG 

>
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2017, at 10:05 pm, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is 
> this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will 
> say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United 
> States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 
>> months. TIA, AG
>>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:55:46 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2017, at 22:55, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 9:14:48 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM,  wrote:
>  
>
> ​> ​
> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can exist,
>
>
> ​
> That
> ​ is NOT​
> ​
>  what I claimed
> ​.​
> I claimed any
> ​ ​f
> undamental parameter
> ​ that​
> can exist
> ​ does exist, I did NOT ​claim 
> any
> ​ ​f
> undamental parameter
>  can exist. There is a HUGE difference!
>
>
> That's much more Tegmarkian than MWI. In the latter, the claim is that 
> except for the measurement realized, identical universes come into being 
> where the values not measured in this world, are realized, that is, 
> measured. So these other universes, if they exist, have the same 
> fundamental constants as our universe. AG 
>
>
> Even if all parameters consistent with logic CAN occur, it doesn't 
> necessarily mean they DO. I illustrated this possibility, but haven't 
> proved it (and AFAIK, no one has), with my thought experiment using the 
> real line. And in the case of the MWI, the parameters of those other worlds 
> must be IDENTICAL to this world, since the claim of MWI is that those 
> universes are identical except for the values measured. Now let's go back 
> to Joe the Plumber. Suppose in this world he leaves the casino after one 
> pull of the slot machine, having now created 10 million other universes. 
> Presumably some of those other Joe's continue playing, some not, resulting 
> in tens of millions of new universes, with identical Joe's, some continuing 
> to play, and some not. And on and on it goes. Does this really make sense 
> to you? Joe and slot machines is a parable. Purists can think of Joe in a 
> lab, shooting an electron at a double slit. AG
>
>
> It seems to me it makes much sense that Bohm or Copenhagen. It is just the 
> SWE, viewed by machine which evolves doing the coding in some position 
> base, probably for some reason.
>
> It is shocking perhaps. But then for a Platonist, if the ultimate reality 
> is not shocking, it is a symptom you have not yet seen it. It is normal, 
> our brain are not build to study that ultimate reality, and I think that 
> somehow, it is even build for hidden some parts of the ultimate reality. 
>

*Not shocking; rather it shows poor judgment; hubris to think humans can 
create metastasizing universes by doing simple quantum experiments.  It 
creates and leaves a ton of unanswered questions under the rug and ignored, 
which never seems to faze its enthusiasts. AG*

>
> With Mechanism, it becomes conceptually very simple. You need only the 
> numbers and addition or multiplication (or any first order theory Turing 
> equivalent to it). That is, you need only a universal machine, in the 
> mathematical sense of Church, Post, Turing, Kleene, ... Then the existence 
> of all pieces of dreams is given by very elementary theory, and it involves 
> the dreamers sometimes sharing very long dreams, and some other 
> consciousness state. In fact this gives a theology in the greek sense of 
> the terms, meaning that it contains physics, making Mechanism testable. The 
> "many-apparent worlds" is a confirmation of the infinitely many dreams 
> below our substitution levels, and the math of self-reference provides 
> three quantum logics for the notion of "observable" by a mean Universal 
> Turing machine".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> ​> ​
> then there would be universes where matter could NOT exist, and the 
> reproducing of the measuring scenario would be IMPOSSIBLE!
>
>
> ​And that is why the MWI says everything that can happen does happen, not 
> everything that can't happen does happen.
>
> ​> ​
> You need help, badly, urgently.
>
>
> ​Hmm, after communicating with ​you for a while I have reached the 
> following conclusion:
>  
> ​ you sir are an ass.
>
> John K Clark​
>
>
> You shouldn't have deleted what you actually wrote. Then we could judge 
> what your words conveyed. I don't time now to dredge it up. In any event, 
> the parable about the slot machine says it all. AG 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> ...

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:05:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett  
> wrote:
>
>
> ​ >​
> ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics,
>
>
> ​ > ​
> Everettian worlds follow from assuming that the Schrödinger equation 
> applies everywhere without exception, so that all physical evolution is 
> unitary. A change in the underlying physics -- such as a change in the 
> value of fundamental constants, Planck's constant or Newton's constant for 
> example -- would not be unitary, so cannot occur in MWI.
>
>
> ​
> Why can't it be unitary?? Show me why if 
> ​ ​
> Newton's constant had any value other than 
> ​ ​
> 6.754* 10^-11 m3 kg^−1 s^−2 
> ​  ​
> the sum of all quantum probabilities would no longer add up to exactly 1. 
> If you can really do that then you've just derived Newton's constant 
> directly from first principles and you should but a ticket to Stockholm 
> right now because you're absolutely certain to win the next nobel Prize. 
>
>
> Although unitarity does mean that probabilities always sum to unity, that 
> is a consequence of unitary evolution, not a definition of it. A unitary 
> transformation is one that can be reversed: so the unitary operator U can 
> be written as exp(-iH), for example, and the complex conjugate (or the 
> adjoint for hermitian operators) is the inverse transformation.
>
> So for changes in constants to be unitary, there needs to be a hermitian 
> operator that brings about these changes. But changes in constants only 
> make sense for dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant,
>
>
> *From a naive pov one could conjecture that the SoL could change even 
> though it's not a dimensionless quantity. ISTM the conclusion of an 
> unchanging SoL is forced on us since a meter is now defined as the distance 
> light travels in a second, where distance is defined in terms of the SoL. I 
> mean to say the current definitions of second and meter seem based on the 
> assumption that the SoL is an unchanging universal constant. Is this not 
> circular reasoning? AG*
>

*Using the current definitions of meter and second, if the SoL slowed, 
wouldn't the meter shorten (being the distance light travels in some 
fraction of a second), making the slowing undetectable? Wouldn't the 
"duration" of the second remain unchanged in this scenario, being some 
fixed number of oscillations of a cesium atom? TIA, AG*

>
>
> and there is currently no theory as to how this would change in a unitary 
> manner.
>
>
> ​ >> ​
> lets assume you're right, then the string theory multiverse must be larger 
> than the many worlds multiverse incorporating everything in Everett's 
> version and MORE; after all if it contains universes with radically 
> different laws of physics it must also contain more modest things like a 
> world where my coin came up heads instead of tails.
>
>
> ​ > ​
> I would suggest that there is no such world. Whether a coin comes up head 
> or tails on a simple toss is not a quantum event;
>
>
> ​Do you actually think reality can be neatly divided ​
>   
>
> ...

-- 
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: US vs North Korea

[Kim Jones]

This is completely off-topic for this list. There are gazillions of discussions 
going on about this elswhere

Kim Jones 



> On 1 Dec 2017, at 10:05 pm, Lawrence Crowell 
>  wrote:
> 
> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is this 
> science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will say 
> though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United States 
> and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
> 
> LC
> 
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 months. 
>> TIA, AG
> 
> -- 
> 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: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/2017 11:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that
 the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those
 of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the
 civilization process start to oppose this way of thinking, and it
 seems clear that there is still a long way to go.
>>>
>>> Yes, you will have to go a long way to convince me that Wahabist culture
>>> is
>>> equally valuable as Western Enlightenment culture.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand me, of course Western Enlightenment culture
>> is preferable to Wahabism.
>> I was referring to the biological impulse to consider those
>> genetically distant from you as less human.
>
>
> OK.  "Ethnicity" is ambiguous and often is used to designate a culture;
> having nothing to do with genetics.

You're right, I used the term incorrectly.

Telmo.

>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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: Dreamless Sleep?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Nov 2017, at 01:28, David Nyman wrote:


https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists






Wonderful! Thanks! It confirms Mechanism, both the one of Descartes  
and the "theology" of the machine. And the salvia plant!


I have always personally suspect this "experientially", noticing that  
the reason we "miss" it is that it very hard to memorize. It confirms  
the idea that non-consciousness is relative amnesia, less neurons  
makes you more conscious, the brain is something like a filter, nature  
is a product of contemplation (Plotinus!),...


Since 2008 I write in a diary all my salvia experiences, but also  
tobacco experience, occasional cannabis experience, occasional alcohol  
experiences, and the usual coffee experiences and actually any  
pertinent, for the consciousness study, experiences (as they all  
influences the outcomes). Since 2008, the first salvia experience, the  
mentions of the deep-sleep consciousness experiences has grown up  
systematically, and since some years they are mentionned almost every  
morning.  It is very weird. I made once two "perpendicular sort-of- 
dreams", which brought my attention on relations between quantum logic  
and octonions, which I found also in a very interesting paper by John  
Baes. This plunges me back in my feeling that little numbers could  
quickly play a special role, like the number 24, and the exceptional  
simple groups, and relation between groups of permutations of solution  
of diophantine polynomials. We understand the metamathematical content  
of arithmetic through big numbers

(indeed Gödel represented "2+2=4", that is

"ffa+ffa=a" , (with f, a, +, = equal to even numbers: f is 3, a is  
5, + is 7, = is 9)


by

(2^f)(3^f)(5^a)(7^+)(11^f)(13^f)(17^a)(19^=)(23^f)(29^f)(31^f)(37^f) 
(39^a)


which is an astromical numbers. Today we use efficient coding, of  
course, which adds intensional and modal relations. But it could be  
that little numbers have already a rich and deep metamathematical  
content, arithmetic would understand itself more quickly than our  
apparent current detour through a quantum vacuum fluctuation going  
wrong make us to think...


Otto Rossler once summed up Descartes Mechanism with "consciousness is  
a prison". Mechanism seems a bit pernicious, as it predicts somehow  
that we might get the solution of the mind-body problem when we die,  
or "sleep" deep enough (cf Shakespeare), unfortunately we don't  
memorize, and our billions years of prejudices can strikes back in a  
second.


Very interesting (and relevant) studies!

Bruno





--
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.


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.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/30/2017 11:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that
the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those
of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the
civilization process start to oppose this way of thinking, and it
seems clear that there is still a long way to go.

Yes, you will have to go a long way to convince me that Wahabist culture is
equally valuable as Western Enlightenment culture.

I think you misunderstand me, of course Western Enlightenment culture
is preferable to Wahabism.
I was referring to the biological impulse to consider those
genetically distant from you as less human.


OK.  "Ethnicity" is ambiguous and often is used to designate a culture; 
having nothing to do with genetics.


Brent

--
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: US vs North Korea

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 3:43:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:05:32 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is 
>> this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will 
>> say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United 
>> States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Let's not go the route of Avoid2. This will be the exemption for political 
> discussion. I read yesterday that on Sept 30 funds were cut off for a 
> commission studying the issue of an EMP crippling our electrical grid. It's 
> worrisome. AG
>

I meant EXCEPTION, not exemption. AG 

 

>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 
>>> months. TIA, AG
>>>
>>

-- 
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: US vs North Korea

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:05:32 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is 
> this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will 
> say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United 
> States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.
>
> LC
>

Let's not go the route of Avoid2. This will be the exemption for political 
discussion. I read yesterday that on Sept 30 funds were cut off for a 
commission studying the issue of an EMP crippling our electrical grid. It's 
worrisome. AG 

>
>
> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 
>> months. TIA, AG
>>
>

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

Weinberg looked into nonlinear QM, and it went nowhere. The linearity of QM is 
one thing that makes it so bizarre. If you make QM nonlinear you tend to make 
it obey Bell inequalities. 

LC

---
 
N. Gisin, Weinberg Non-linear Quantum-mechanics and Supraluminal 
Communications, Phys. Letters (1990)


http://www.unige.ch/gap/quantum/publications:bib:gisin1990 (pdf downloadable)

-- 
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: Quantum Supremacy

[Lawrence Crowell]

Bitcoins are used a lot by organized criminals. The block chain system is 
ideal for moving dirty money. It is a part of this disturbing trend of 
criminal power rising up. Trump made his money laundering dirty money 
through real estate. Last year 70% of his real estate transactions occurred 
with anonymous figures. As the world moves increasingly towards gangster 
government and failed democracy there might in the long run be a great 
future for bitcoins.

LC

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:05:49 PM UTC-6, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Any potential for this technology to go beyond Bitcoin or encryption 
> applications, JC? Specifically, the impact upon technological innovation. 
> Or do you feel, this is a pipe-dream, a bridge, too far? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Nov 30, 2017 10:20 am
> Subject: Quantum Supremacy
>
> For the first time a Quantum Computer has solved a problem that a 
> conventional computer can not, actually 2 different Quantum Computers did 
> and there is a paper from each team in the issue of the journal Nature that 
> came out yesterday: 
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24654.epdf?referrer_access_token=d5OIRgRXjhov_Y7aUYicHdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0O2y_BZ5CPS-KH0aejio0CrBO8pCtA0Hw4GFFcyLIGq_9sLyItmGlAGgcpoZyLC8y6KSXTgCvy7v1QisLsYnG7vqi0w-vnf5I6-odil-i4Ggo4QUUcQBWJIcfy58N7x-D6YsD_nU4U1ytVuVTPC_9DiOvGaqFmBfRv224xNWopYo0YSPYwYmZ6NRvXUvTz9IjU%3D_referrer=www.livescience.com
>
>
> /www.nature.com/articles/nature24622.epdf?referrer_access_token=dgXGNTysT8EwhOOZ9lOtQtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MQ8a6_YgG4UfcW2SwV0yyUTLJhfJnff5uaj_no78zD6rP8nmDWU7noJKpPvMWclA9w0aheS0c6M6vehI9x_Y8JbfCt86YmnfvcXZxYxSOKVlOHn9Fb-nJl6gLqSwV3gVD4ALGMk31HzU-p36zd4sOlyMHyN2g8I9iV1b0Z70zl6VRmdR2KbTP55RsXB2mA2cQ%3D_referrer=www.livescience.com
>  
> 
>
> They used their computers to simulate a quantum system, the particular 
> problem they solved is not very useful but the implications are enormous, 
> it proves once and for all that a practical quantum computer that you can 
> actually build can solve problems that a conventional computer can't. 
>
> If I place 20 magnetized atoms in a lattice and then move one of those 
> atoms how will the entire array move in response?  A good home computer 
> could solve that problem but the difficulty increases exponentially as the 
> number  of atoms increases, when you get to about 50 atoms even the largest 
> supercomputer on Earth starts to beg for mercy, but in the new reports one 
> quantum computer solved the 51 atom problem and the other solved 53. The 
> mechanical details of the 2 machines are different, one used very tightly 
> focused LASER beams and rubidium atoms and the other used electrically 
> charged ytterbium ions, but they both got the job done. 
>
> None of this is a threat to bitcoinYET.  But the clock is ticking. 
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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: US vs North Korea

[Lawrence Crowell]

Everything is easy to predict except the future. The one thing I hope is 
this science and physics list does not become laden with politics. I will 
say though that with the sociopathic presidents or leaders of the United 
States and N. Korea the outcome is likely to range from bad to disastrous.

LC

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 7:51:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 
> months. TIA, AG
>

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

The GHZ state is a four state entanglement. The symmetry is a bit more 
complicated. The entanglement is a quotient state and a typical form is 

G/H = SO(8)/SO(4)xSO(4)

in 16 dimensions. This in a rule of thumb way captures the 2^4 possible 
state configurations. 

The GHZ state then gives a larger set of probability polynomials, but in 
the end it really gives much the same result as the standard EPR binomial 
entanglement. We can say in some sense that maybe there is some reality to 
the evolution of a quantum system, but we have no way of unobtrusively 
accessing that reality. If we verify the evolution of the state we lose its 
coherence. Even with quantum erasers or weak measurements there is some 
obtrusion.

LC

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 4:25:17 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> BTW, how is this [1] [2] intensionality, or contextuality, or wholeness, 
> or undecidibility, or whatever - and related difficulties regarding the 
> existence of "elements of reality" [3] - understandable within (postulates 
> of) Quantum Mechanics (and especially within ontological interpretations 
> like MWI)?
>
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0921
>
> [2] http://www.math.zju.edu.cn/wjd/notespapers/3-2.pdf
>
> [3] “”if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with 
> certainty (i.e., a probability equal to unity) the value of a
> physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality 
> corresponding to this physical quantity.” ---EPR
>

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

BTW, how is this [1] [2] intensionality, or contextuality, or wholeness, or 
undecidibility, or whatever - and related difficulties regarding the existence 
of "elements of reality" [3] - understandable within (postulates of) Quantum 
Mechanics (and especially within ontological interpretations like MWI)?

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0921

[2] http://www.math.zju.edu.cn/wjd/notespapers/3-2.pdf

[3] “”if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty 
(i.e., a probability equal to unity) the value of a
physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality 
corresponding to this physical quantity.” ---EPR

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:05:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett  
> wrote:
>
>
> ​ >​
> ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics,
>
>
> ​ > ​
> Everettian worlds follow from assuming that the Schrödinger equation 
> applies everywhere without exception, so that all physical evolution is 
> unitary. A change in the underlying physics -- such as a change in the 
> value of fundamental constants, Planck's constant or Newton's constant for 
> example -- would not be unitary, so cannot occur in MWI.
>
>
> ​
> Why can't it be unitary?? Show me why if 
> ​ ​
> Newton's constant had any value other than 
> ​ ​
> 6.754* 10^-11 m3 kg^−1 s^−2 
> ​  ​
> the sum of all quantum probabilities would no longer add up to exactly 1. 
> If you can really do that then you've just derived Newton's constant 
> directly from first principles and you should but a ticket to Stockholm 
> right now because you're absolutely certain to win the next nobel Prize. 
>
>
> Although unitarity does mean that probabilities always sum to unity, that 
> is a consequence of unitary evolution, not a definition of it. A unitary 
> transformation is one that can be reversed: so the unitary operator U can 
> be written as exp(-iH), for example, and the complex conjugate (or the 
> adjoint for hermitian operators) is the inverse transformation.
>
> So for changes in constants to be unitary, there needs to be a hermitian 
> operator that brings about these changes. But changes in constants only 
> make sense for dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant,
>
>
> *From a naive pov one could conjecture that the SoL could change even 
> though it's not a dimensionless quantity. ISTM the conclusion of an 
> unchanging SoL is forced on us since a meter is now defined as the distance 
> light travels in a second, where distance is defined in terms of the SoL? I 
> mean to say the current definitions of second and meter seem based on the 
> assumption that the SoL is an unchanging universal constant. Is this not 
> circular reasoning? AG*
>

*Correction of typo above. No question mark at end of second sentence. AG *

>
>
> and there is currently no theory as to how this would change in a unitary 
> manner.
>
>
> ​ >> ​
> lets assume you're right, then the string theory multiverse must be larger 
> than the many worlds multiverse incorporating everything in Everett's 
> version and MORE; after all if it contains universes with radically 
> different laws of physics it must also contain more modest things like a 
> world where my coin came up heads instead of tails.
>
>
> ​ > ​
> I would suggest that there is no such world. Whether a coin comes up head 
> or tails on a simple toss is not a quantum event;
>
>
> ​Do you actually think reality can be neatly divided ​
>   
> ​ 
>
> ...

-- 
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: Consistency of Postulates of QM

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>
> ​ >​
> ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics,
>
>
> ​ > ​
> Everettian worlds follow from assuming that the Schrödinger equation 
> applies everywhere without exception, so that all physical evolution is 
> unitary. A change in the underlying physics -- such as a change in the 
> value of fundamental constants, Planck's constant or Newton's constant for 
> example -- would not be unitary, so cannot occur in MWI.
>
>
> ​
> Why can't it be unitary?? Show me why if 
> ​ ​
> Newton's constant had any value other than 
> ​ ​
> 6.754* 10^-11 m3 kg^−1 s^−2 
> ​  ​
> the sum of all quantum probabilities would no longer add up to exactly 1. 
> If you can really do that then you've just derived Newton's constant 
> directly from first principles and you should but a ticket to Stockholm 
> right now because you're absolutely certain to win the next nobel Prize. 
>
>
> Although unitarity does mean that probabilities always sum to unity, that 
> is a consequence of unitary evolution, not a definition of it. A unitary 
> transformation is one that can be reversed: so the unitary operator U can 
> be written as exp(-iH), for example, and the complex conjugate (or the 
> adjoint for hermitian operators) is the inverse transformation.
>
> So for changes in constants to be unitary, there needs to be a hermitian 
> operator that brings about these changes. But changes in constants only 
> make sense for dimensionless constants such as the fine structure constant,


*From a naive pov one could conjecture that the SoL could change even 
though it's not a dimensionless quantity. ISTM the conclusion of an 
unchanging SoL is forced on us since a meter is now defined as the distance 
light travels in a second, where distance is defined in terms of the SoL? I 
mean to say the current definitions of second and meter seem based on the 
assumption that the SoL is an unchanging universal constant. Is this not 
circular reasoning? AG*

and there is currently no theory as to how this would change in a unitary 
> manner.
>
>
> ​ >> ​
> lets assume you're right, then the string theory multiverse must be larger 
> than the many worlds multiverse incorporating everything in Everett's 
> version and MORE; after all if it contains universes with radically 
> different laws of physics it must also contain more modest things like a 
> world where my coin came up heads instead of tails.
>
>
> ​ > ​
> I would suggest that there is no such world. Whether a coin comes up head 
> or tails on a simple toss is not a quantum event;
>
>
> ​Do you actually think reality can be neatly divided ​
>   
> ​ between quantum and non-quantum events? A unstable atom has a 50% chance 
> of decaying and producing a easily detectable high speed electron, if the 
> electron ​is detected a computer controlled robot arm turns my coin to 
> heads, if it detects no electron it turns my coin to tails.
>
>
> Of course, if you set up a situation in which a quantum event is amplified 
> to give a difference in macroscopic outcomes, such as in Schrödinger's cat, 
> then you can say that the macroscopic uncertainty has a quantum origin. But 
> the majority of quantum events are not amplified in this way -- they simply 
> occur randomly in large numbers so that the expectation value is unaffected 
> by individual uncertainties.
>
> ​ > ​
> Also, in the Level I multiverse it is quite unlikely that the initial 
> conditions could differ to an extent such that everything was identical in 
> the two worlds up to your coin toss.
>
>
> ​Quite
>  unlikely 
> ​ events are going to happen if the number of universes is large enough, 
> and if there are a infinity of worlds then anything with a non-zero 
> probability is certain to happen in some universe.
>
>
> Except events of measure zero.
>
> ...

-- 
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.