Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 05-12-2017 22:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 10:56 pm, smitra wrote: On 05-12-2017 12:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 10:20 pm, smitra wrote: Bruno is right and the article itself makes this claim explicitly. Even if one can write down a state that does contain sufficient

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 5/12/2017 10:56 pm, smitra wrote: On 05-12-2017 12:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 10:20 pm, smitra wrote: Bruno is right and the article itself makes this claim explicitly. Even if one can write down a state that does contain sufficient information, this wouldn't be relevant. In

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 6/12/2017 6:13 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/4/2017 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: In other words, the randomness must be purely quantum for Everettian splitting to occur -- the apparent randonmness arises as a result of the splitting, it was not present before in any sense since the SE is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:13:23 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 5/12/2017 4:00 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 12/4/2017 7:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/4/2017 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 4:00 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/4/2017 7:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Randomness in the sense that I am using it arises in

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah > > Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human > beings. > > The level of AI was pathetic 50 years ago. It is pathethic now

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 04 Dec 2017, at 01:17, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and prey less successful.

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 02 Dec 2017, at 14:45, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:15:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2017, at 18:41, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:30:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: Very interesting. It confirms the

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Yes. we are all robots. You are the only human mmwwahahah Every decade it is predicted that 50 years from now AI would surpass human beings. The level of AI was pathetic 50 years ago. It is pathethic now and will be pathetic 50 years later. 2017-11-27 22:32 GMT+01:00

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Hi Telmo, On 04 Dec 2017, at 11:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, I have a lot of sympathy for the quote above, as you can guess, which are all rather close to the "theology of number", but my Lôbian Fear get trigged by the terming "perfectly benevolent". The Lôbian machine can

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 03 Dec 2017, at 19:55, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Telmo, Hi Jason, On 01 Dec 2017, at 06:26, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Nov 28,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > > My contention is that for a macroscopic object, such as the coin, the > randomness is always deterministic, and due to our lack of knowledge of > the initial conditions. Classical probability theory arose from such > cases, as

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 05-12-2017 12:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 10:20 pm, smitra wrote: On 05-12-2017 04:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Randomness in the sense that I am using it arises in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 5/12/2017 10:20 pm, smitra wrote: On 05-12-2017 04:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Randomness in the sense that I am using it arises in deterministic systems from lack of knowledge of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 05-12-2017 04:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Randomness in the sense that I am using it arises in deterministic systems from lack of knowledge of the initial conditions. As in the coin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 5/12/2017 9:32 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: To wrap it up, if the phase factor is arbitrary, which is what my professor indicated, it's puzzling how a sum of solutions as a superposition could have fixed relations among those factors to yield a coherent wf. I may not be the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:19:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Dec 2017, at 18:21, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 2:07:17 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Dec 2017, at 00:20, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:57:57 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 5:32:22 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 3:59:19 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 6:33:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 5:35:37 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 5/12/2017 4:00 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: >> > On 12/4/2017 7:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Do you not understand that one of the enduring mysteries of quantum theory is the emergence of the classical world from the purely quantum substrate? Decoherence goes a long way towards answering the underlying problems, but unless something intervenes to exactly zero the off-diagonal terms in