Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility.  In trying to 
> debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of 
> observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually 
> proposed that. 
> 
> Brent
> 
> 

“The idea that the alternate measurement outcomes be not alternatives but all 
really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to the quantum theorist, just 
impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, a sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. . . . according to the 
quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it.”

-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Assays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995).

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 3:16:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/27/2018 11:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The Copenhagen interpretation is no more insane than many world 
> interpretation.
>
>
> The CI got a bad rap because some woo-woo merchants seized on the idea 
> that is was consciousness that collapsed the wave-function; which was never 
> what Heisenberg or Bohr said.  If you take MWI and instead imaging all the 
> worlds still exist after decoherence you suppose that all but one world 
> fades away as the cross terms in the reduced density matrix go to zero then 
> you're back to CI.
>
> Brent
>


There are issues with it. The collapse of the wave function by classical 
systems is a bit mysterious and it does lead to problems with there being 
nonunitarity. The CI shares difficulties as do all other interpretations. 
Curiously the CI is a decent way to look at D-branes. Of course the various 
string theory types that transform on D-branes are a lower energy 
asymptotic expansion of "something else," so who knows where this might go. 
At the Hagedorn temperature strings join into long strings and D-branes 
probably exhibit a phase transition to becomes strings that join up.

LC

-- 
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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:56:46PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> 
> Why don't we make it easy on ourselves and give numbers to our old ideas
> that we sent to the list years ago? That way you could for example say
> "argument #11392" and I could just say "counter-argument #11393". Think of
> all the wear and tear on out typing fingers we could save!
> 

If #11392 could be turned into a URL that points to the actual
argument in question, that would be a fantastic idea! Unfortunately,
it is a lot of work in practice - I provided a number of such links
into the archive in my book.


-- 


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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 7:01:12 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:38 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
> ​> *​*
>> *Suppose we just assume detectors that watch each slit, and record which 
>> slit each photon goes through, and later we see no interference pattern -- 
>> which I think is what happens.*
>>
>
> ​It is.​
>  
>  
>
>> ​>
>>  *What does this say about the MWI?*
>>
>
> The universe splits when the photon goes through the slits because the 2 
> universes are different, the memory chips in the computer become different, 
> in one the memory is of the photon going through slot X while in the other 
> universe the memory is of it going through slot Y ,  so the 2 universes 
> remain different and never merge together again and thus no interference 
> pattern is seen
> ​.​
> But if both erase that memory then there is no longer a difference between 
> the 2 universes and thus they merge back together, but the fact that they 
> were once different means that interference effects will be observable.
>
> People always talk about the universe splitting but they can merge too, 
> although that only happens if the difference between the 2 universes is 
> very very small because if its large you’re never going to engineer things 
> so they become identical again. That’s why we can do the 2 slit experiment 
> with photons and electrons and even with buckyballs made of 60 carbon 
> atoms, but we can’t do it with bowling balls, the difference between a 
> bowling ball going through slot X is just too different from a bowling ball 
> going through slot Y to ever make the 2 universes identical again so they 
> can merge back together. We can see interference effects in a ball made of 
> 60 atoms but not one made of 6.02*10^23 atoms. 
>
> ​ John K Clark​
>  
>

After the split, what happens in the new universe? 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: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/27/2018 11:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation is no more insane than many world 
interpretation.


The CI got a bad rap because some woo-woo merchants seized on the idea 
that is was consciousness that collapsed the wave-function; which was 
never what Heisenberg or Bohr said.  If you take MWI and instead imaging 
all the worlds still exist after decoherence you suppose that all but 
one world fades away as the cross terms in the reduced density matrix go 
to zero then you're back to CI.


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: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/27/2018 10:58 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:02:33 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *'scerir' via Everything List* >


K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth
of the Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many
**different** versions on-line.

https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM 

https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek

He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the
observer (consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen
Interpretation.

'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element
in quantum physics, this should not be taken to mean that the
consciousness of the ‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh
measurement interaction. In Physics and Philosophy in 1958,
Heisenberg argued that “the transition from the ‘possible’ to the
‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation” but this
transition occurs “applies to the physical, not the psychical act
of observation”. Only once the “interaction of the object with
the measuring device” has taken place can we speak of the
actualization, but here he was careful to point out that “it is
not connected with the act of registration of the result, by the
mind of observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 54).'

'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to
be associated with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars
have often traced this view to von Neumann’s analysis of
measurement in his Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik
published in 1932 (von Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s
complementarity, the measurement device is described using the
concepts of classical physics, and not according to the laws of
quantum mechanics, in von Neumann’s presentation, the measurement
device is given a quantum-mechanical treatment (Bub, 1995).
According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of the problem, when
we observe a quantum system, there is an instantaneous change of
the wave function in Hilbert space – it collapses – a process
which is not described by the Schrödinger equation. Precisely
what von Neumann’s philosophical views on this matter were is
more difficult to judge, though as Becker and Gavroglou have
observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a realist view of
the wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to the
need to introduce the consciousness of the observer in the
measuring chain (Becker, 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it
was the 1939 monograph La Théorie de l’Observation en Méchanique
Quantique by London and Bauer which we find the first explicit
mention of the claim that the reduction of the wave function was
the result of the conscious activity of the human mind (French,
2002).'

etc etc



Interesting. I have often thought that Bohr and Heisenberg
were not quite the monsters of positivism that they are often
painted as these days. In fact, I would suggest that the
prevalence of decoherence means that a case can be made that
everything is, in practice, classical, and that the quantum only
shows itself reluctantly in the small and the isolated. Whether
that means that the classical is prior -- essential for
understanding the quantum -- is something that can be argued
about. But I do not think that such an idea is entirely silly, and
nor can it just be dismissed out-of-hand.

The world we know and experience is classical, after all. Else we,
as classical beings, could not experience it!

Bruce


It seems Von Neumann is the culprit. See 
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/heisenberg_cut.html


Scroll down to paragraph 6. Extensive von Neumann quote on this issue. AG


I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility.  In trying to 
debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity 
of observation changing the physical state...even though no one had 
actually proposed that.


Brent
Ms Schroedinger: What happened to that poor cat? It looks half dead.
Erwin: I don't know. Ask Wigner.
Eugene: I just looked in and it collapsed.

--
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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> *That step is very simple,*
>

​Yes, simple as in stupid.​


​>* ​*
> *accessible by very young people without any knowledge*


Because very young people with no knowledge never stopped to think exactly
what personal pronouns mean in a world that contains people duplicating
machines.


> ​> ​
> it is made by defining the first person discourse made by a robot, say,
> and which (the diary)
>

The only thing stupider than that step is the diary.


> ​> ​
> Of course, I ahem to rehash this from time to time,
>

Why don't we make it easy on ourselves and give numbers to our old ideas
that we sent to the list years ago? That way you could for example say
"argument #11392" and I could just say "counter-argument #11393". Think of
all the wear and tear on out typing fingers we could save!

​ 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: Entanglement

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

*​> ​many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is
> erased.  ​Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!*


We won't know if Deutsch is wrong until the experiment is
actually performed as I expect it will be sometime in the next few
decades, but at least he made a stand and you did too,  he predicted
interference bands will be seen and you predicted there will be no
such bands. So much for the idea that the MWI is not testable.
​

 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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:46:24 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/27/2018 5:33 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *How does decoherence, being allegedly well defined, support the splitting 
> of worlds? AG*
>
>
> It provides a physical mechanism and definite time at which the splitting 
> must occur.
>
> Brent
>

Sure; the mechanism is the measurement and the time as well. How could I 
have missed it? 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: Entanglement

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:38 PM,  wrote:

​> *​*
> *Suppose we just assume detectors that watch each slit, and record which
> slit each photon goes through, and later we see no interference pattern --
> which I think is what happens.*
>

​It is.​



> ​>
>  *What does this say about the MWI?*
>

The universe splits when the photon goes through the slits because the 2
universes are different, the memory chips in the computer become different,
in one the memory is of the photon going through slot X while in the other
universe the memory is of it going through slot Y ,  so the 2 universes
remain different and never merge together again and thus no interference
pattern is seen
​.​
But if both erase that memory then there is no longer a difference between
the 2 universes and thus they merge back together, but the fact that they
were once different means that interference effects will be observable.

People always talk about the universe splitting but they can merge too,
although that only happens if the difference between the 2 universes is
very very small because if its large you’re never going to engineer things
so they become identical again. That’s why we can do the 2 slit experiment
with photons and electrons and even with buckyballs made of 60 carbon
atoms, but we can’t do it with bowling balls, the difference between a
bowling ball going through slot X is just too different from a bowling ball
going through slot Y to ever make the 2 universes identical again so they
can merge back together. We can see interference effects in a ball made of
60 atoms but not one made of 6.02*10^23 atoms.

​ 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: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/27/2018 5:33 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*How does decoherence, being allegedly well defined, support the 
splitting of worlds? AG*


It provides a physical mechanism and definite time at which the 
splitting must occur.


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: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope 
for, and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in 
“serious metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need 
already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the 
everyday life we just forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics 
we have to be more careful and precise.


You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from 
the truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.


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: Entanglement

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:02:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: 'scerir' via Everything List  >
>
>
> K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the 
> Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions 
> on-line.
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek
>
> He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer 
> (consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
>
> 'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element in 
> quantum physics, this should not be taken to mean that the consciousness of 
> the ‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh measurement interaction. In 
> Physics and Philosophy in 1958, Heisenberg argued that “the transition from 
> the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation” 
> but this transition occurs “applies to the physical, not the psychical act 
> of observation”. Only once the “interaction of the object with the 
> measuring device” has taken place can we speak of the actualization, but 
> here he was careful to point out that “it is not connected with the act of 
> registration of the result, by the mind of observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 
> 54).'
>
> 'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to be 
> associated with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars have often 
> traced this view to von Neumann’s analysis of measurement in his 
> Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik published in 1932 (von 
> Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s complementarity, the measurement device 
> is described using the concepts of classical physics, and not according to 
> the laws of quantum mechanics, in von Neumann’s presentation, the 
> measurement device is given a quantum-mechanical treatment (Bub, 1995). 
> According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of the problem, when we observe 
> a quantum system, there is an instantaneous change of the wave function in 
> Hilbert space – it collapses – a process which is not described by the 
> Schrödinger equation. Precisely what von Neumann’s philosophical views on 
> this matter were is more difficult to judge, though as Becker and Gavroglou 
> have observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a realist view of the 
> wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to the need to 
> introduce the consciousness of the observer in the measuring chain (Becker, 
> 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it was the 1939 monograph La Théorie 
> de l’Observation en Méchanique Quantique by London and Bauer which we find 
> the first explicit mention of the claim that the reduction of the wave 
> function was the result of the conscious activity of the human mind 
> (French, 2002).'
>
> etc etc
>
>
> Interesting. I have often thought that Bohr and Heisenberg were not 
> quite the monsters of positivism that they are often painted as these days. 
> In fact, I would suggest that the prevalence of decoherence means that a 
> case can be made that everything is, in practice, classical, and that the 
> quantum only shows itself reluctantly in the small and the isolated. 
> Whether that means that the classical is prior -- essential for 
> understanding the quantum -- is something that can be argued about. But I 
> do not think that such an idea is entirely silly, and nor can it just be 
> dismissed out-of-hand.
>
> The world we know and experience is classical, after all. Else we, as 
> classical beings, could not experience it!
>
> Bruce
>

 
It is maybe wrong to say that either the classical or quantum are somehow 
prior. We are used to thinking of the classical world as being in part 
built up from the quantum world. We often think of the classical world as a 
large action or many Planck units of action limit on quantum physics. Yet 
the relationship between the quantum and classical worlds is a bit strange. 
Often we quantize a classical field theory. This is certainly the case with 
QED. though intrinsic spin and Fermi-Dirac fields are not so derived. The 
question of quantum gravity may well have to do with a question over this; 
is quantum gravitation a quantization of classical general relativity, or 
is classical GR some limit of some systems that is entirely different. This 
connects in many ways the nature of gauge symmetries and entanglement. 
Gauge symmetries are redundancies, a set of moduli in a space or moduli 
space are all redundant with respect to field configurations on the base 
manifold. Entanglements by analogy are a redundancy with respect to the 
quantum information in states; the change or unitary processing of one 
state is copied with another.

The Copenhagen interpretation is no more insane than many world 
interpretation. The difference is how one might want to think of the role 
of entanglement phase. In decoherence we think of entanglement phase, this 
sort of state redundancy, as diffused into the rest of the world. With 
black hole

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow,
>
No, the sun has risen the next day many billions of times so you can use
indiction to conclude it will probably rise tomorrow too, I say probably
because induction is not foolproof but it is a very good rule of thumb. But
nobody has risen from the dead so you need faith to conclude Jesus rose
from the dead. We couldn't operate for 5 minutes without induction, but
faith is a vice not a virtue because it makes us stupid.

> > *you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology [...] The difference
> of conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is[...] they use
> Aristotle theology all the times[...] backtracking to Plato[...]*

Bruno, you are stuck in a rut. For you its Greeks Greeks Greeks 24/7 wall
to wall as if the human race hasn’t learned a damn thing in 2500 years.
It’s time to move on!

> *​> ​like most pseudo-religious believers.*


​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​


​ ​
​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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:02:33 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: 'scerir' via Everything List  >
>
>
> K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the 
> Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions 
> on-line.
>
> https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek
>
> He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer 
> (consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
>
> 'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element in 
> quantum physics, this should not be taken to mean that the consciousness of 
> the ‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh measurement interaction. In 
> Physics and Philosophy in 1958, Heisenberg argued that “the transition from 
> the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation” 
> but this transition occurs “applies to the physical, not the psychical act 
> of observation”. Only once the “interaction of the object with the 
> measuring device” has taken place can we speak of the actualization, but 
> here he was careful to point out that “it is not connected with the act of 
> registration of the result, by the mind of observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 
> 54).'
>
> 'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to be 
> associated with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars have often 
> traced this view to von Neumann’s analysis of measurement in his 
> Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik published in 1932 (von 
> Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s complementarity, the measurement device 
> is described using the concepts of classical physics, and not according to 
> the laws of quantum mechanics, in von Neumann’s presentation, the 
> measurement device is given a quantum-mechanical treatment (Bub, 1995). 
> According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of the problem, when we observe 
> a quantum system, there is an instantaneous change of the wave function in 
> Hilbert space – it collapses – a process which is not described by the 
> Schrödinger equation. Precisely what von Neumann’s philosophical views on 
> this matter were is more difficult to judge, though as Becker and Gavroglou 
> have observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a realist view of the 
> wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to the need to 
> introduce the consciousness of the observer in the measuring chain (Becker, 
> 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it was the 1939 monograph La Théorie 
> de l’Observation en Méchanique Quantique by London and Bauer which we find 
> the first explicit mention of the claim that the reduction of the wave 
> function was the result of the conscious activity of the human mind 
> (French, 2002).'
>
> etc etc
>
>
> Interesting. I have often thought that Bohr and Heisenberg were not 
> quite the monsters of positivism that they are often painted as these days. 
> In fact, I would suggest that the prevalence of decoherence means that a 
> case can be made that everything is, in practice, classical, and that the 
> quantum only shows itself reluctantly in the small and the isolated. 
> Whether that means that the classical is prior -- essential for 
> understanding the quantum -- is something that can be argued about. But I 
> do not think that such an idea is entirely silly, and nor can it just be 
> dismissed out-of-hand.
>
> The world we know and experience is classical, after all. Else we, as 
> classical beings, could not experience it!
>
> Bruce
>

It seems Von Neumann is the culprit. See  
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/heisenberg_cut.html

Scroll down to paragraph 6. Extensive von Neumann quote on this issue. 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: Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 13:42, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons or 
> silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff..
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076

Wow! Impressive indeed. And that might plausibly play an important role in 
unifying the quantum principles with gravitation.
Space-time might reduce into entanglement, maybe a sort of Dirac electron 
dovetailing on itself and entangling with itself would do.
Not only there is only one person, playing hide and seek with itself, but there 
would be only one particle, in the base of the sharable phenomenology of matter!

Take this with as much grains of salt you need. That is an impressive success. 
It should help or at least inspire quantum computing on both the theoretical 
and experimental issues.

Would it help to test one-branch-influence at a distance? I doubt it.

Bruno


> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 19:53, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​> ​If you have an argument against step 3 just show it.
> 
> ​FOR GODS SAKE You want to go back years to day one when this entire 
> idiotic conversation started and rehash it all over again, but I'd rather 
> watch paint dry.

That is what you tell us the last time you were debunked, and it is normal. 
That step is very simple, and like M. Jones said, accessible by very young 
people without any knowledge. When it is made by defining the first person 
discourse made by a robot, say, and which (the diary) enter the 
annihilation/copy box, the verification is entirely third person describable. 
That made you oscillate between trivial and non-sensical. But when saying 
trivial, you did not explain why you did not move on the next step (4).

I have not the time for now. But I intend to motivate and explain this to the 
new people. We will see if they found what is “wrong”.

Of course, I ahem to rehash this from time to time, as it is the key of the 
whole reversal between physics and number psychology or theology, especially 
for those who are not familiar with mathematical logic (the second part can use 
the first part as only a motivation).

Bruno



> 
>  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 
> .

-- 
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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:23:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 10:38 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


 *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all 
 observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, 
 but it 
 has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it 
 makes no sense to omit this key difference in your historical 
 comparisons 
 with other apparent absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor 
 into 
 consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds postulated 
 -- 
 assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained 
 by 
 asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is 
 significant as any false path would be. AG*


 It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg 
 cut is located (the other is QBism).  It led to the theory of 
 decoherence 
 and Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule.

 Brent

>>>
>>> * I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a 
>>> kind of hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical 
>>> worlds. *
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an objective physical 
>>> definition.  Bohr regarded it as a choice in analyzing an experiment; 
>>> you 
>>> put it where ever was convenient.
>>>
>>> *What kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI 
>>> shed any light on it, whatever it is? AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's a splitting of 
>>> worlds which has some objective location in terms of decoherence.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
>> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
>> confusion. AG
>>
>>
>> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it 
>> describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether 
>> it 
>> entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
>> axiom.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
> splitting of worlds from this? AG
>
>
> I don't.  Why should I?
>
> Brent
>

 I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
 splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 


 You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in 
 an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?

 Brent

>>>
>>> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I 
>>> thought decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets 
>>> entangled with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why 
>>> is this not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
>>> other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show that 
>>> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  So if 
>>> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there 
>>> is a detection vs no detection.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a 
>> SG device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no 
>> decoherence in this case? 
>>
>>
>> No.  I just saying when you posed the problem you didn't say anything 
>> about detection.  

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *'scerir' via Everything List* >


K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of 
the Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** 
versions on-line.


https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM 

https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek

He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer 
(consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen Interpretation.


'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element in 
quantum physics, this should not be taken to mean that the 
consciousness of the ‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh 
measurement interaction. In Physics and Philosophy in 1958, Heisenberg 
argued that “the transition from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’ takes 
place during the act of observation” but this transition occurs 
“applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation”. Only 
once the “interaction of the object with the measuring device” has 
taken place can we speak of the actualization, but here he was careful 
to point out that “it is not connected with the act of registration of 
the result, by the mind of observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 54).'


'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to be 
associated with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars have often 
traced this view to von Neumann’s analysis of measurement in his 
Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik published in 1932 (von 
Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s complementarity, the measurement 
device is described using the concepts of classical physics, and not 
according to the laws of quantum mechanics, in von Neumann’s 
presentation, the measurement device is given a quantum-mechanical 
treatment (Bub, 1995). According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of 
the problem, when we observe a quantum system, there is an 
instantaneous change of the wave function in Hilbert space – it 
collapses – a process which is not described by the Schrödinger 
equation. Precisely what von Neumann’s philosophical views on this 
matter were is more difficult to judge, though as Becker and Gavroglou 
have observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a realist view of 
the wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to the need 
to introduce the consciousness of the observer in the measuring chain 
(Becker, 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it was the 1939 
monograph La Théorie de l’Observation en Méchanique Quantique by 
London and Bauer which we find the first explicit mention of the claim 
that the reduction of the wave function was the result of the 
conscious activity of the human mind (French, 2002).'


etc etc



Interesting. I have often thought that Bohr and Heisenberg were not 
quite the monsters of positivism that they are often painted as these 
days. In fact, I would suggest that the prevalence of decoherence means 
that a case can be made that everything is, in practice, classical, and 
that the quantum only shows itself reluctantly in the small and the 
isolated. Whether that means that the classical is prior -- essential 
for understanding the quantum -- is something that can be argued about. 
But I do not think that such an idea is entirely silly, and nor can it 
just be dismissed out-of-hand.


The world we know and experience is classical, after all. Else we, as 
classical beings, could not experience it!


Bruce

--
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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 3:09:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2018, at 18:04, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> With a T a theory that admits diagonalization and for Bew(x) a formula 
> with a free x,.we have 
>
> ├_T S ↔ Bew(gn(S)).
>
> The Löb theorem involves the diagonalization in T D(x,y) such that for any 
> D(x,y) = k is the Gödel number diag(x) = k and y = k. This corresponds I 
> think to the φ_u(x,y). It is some algebra to show this leads to the 
> equation above.
>
> The  Löb theorem if├_T Bew(gn(S)) → S then├_T S has parallels with the 
> modal logical
>
> □(□S → S) →  □S,
>
> which is a way of saying that if □S → S then S. 
>
>
> It is a way of saying that if □S → S is *provable*, then S is provable. 
>

>
> This is a fancy way of just saying that if a statement S is provable then 
> S holds. 
>
>
> ?
>
> The Löb formula says the contrary. It says for example with S = f (false), 
> that if the machine is consistent (~provable(f), i.e []f -> f), then f is 
> provable. So if the machine is could prove []f -> f it would prove f and be 
> inconsistent.
>
>
>
>
Yes, that is now S is interpreted. 

I do not have time to go into this discussion right now. I will try to get 
back in a day or so.

LC
 

>
>
> In part this corroborates with what you write. I would say the axiom of 
> reflection, if I recall the name for it,  □S → S is usually thought of as 
> an axiom. 
>
>
>
> It is an axiom of the soul (SAGrz) and of the Noùs (G*), but the machine 
> cannot prove it. That is why we can apply the idea of Theaetetus. As 
> typically []p -> p is not provable, it makes sense to define knowledge by 
> “[]p & p”, like in Plato. That gives a modal logic of knowledge, but by 
> Tarski (and variants), that cannot be defined by the machine, which is 
> nice, as it confirms Brouwer theory of the mental.
>
>
>
>
> In the  Löb theorem we appear to have instances where maybe this might not 
> hold.
>
>
> Not maybe. Certainly. Typical cases []f -> f is not provable. []<>[]f -> 
> <>[]f is not provable, etc.
>
>
>
> If we think of the complement, with ¬ = NOT, is
>
> ¬□S → ¬□(□S → S) 
>
> equal to
>
> ¬□¬¬S → ¬□¬¬(□S → S) 
>
> or for ¬□¬ = ◊, non necessarily not = possibly, we then have
>
> ◊¬S → ◊¬(□S → S) or
>
> ◊¬S → ◊(¬S → ¬□S)  
>
>
> (that line will be false when we do the sigma_1 restriction!)
>
>
>
> ◊¬S → ◊(¬S → ◊¬S)
>
>
> OK. That is almost the dual presentation of Löb’s formula, but it will not 
> work on the sigma_1 (semi-computable) restriction.
>
> Here, out of that restriction, you could use ~S instead of S, so that you 
> have  ◊S → ◊(S → ◊S)   
>
>
> with the conclusion that ¬S → (¬S → ◊¬S). The ◊ = possibly means we have 
> an open door of sorts. We do not have the falsity of S implying logically 
> some proof thereof.
>
>
>
> This means that incompleteness entails the platonic nuances []p & p, []p & 
> <>p, … That plays a key role in the derivation of physics from arithmetic 
> (as imposed by Digital Mechanism).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:11:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Somewhere: (and I copy my answer, as some people asked me this in this 
>> list too).
>>
>>
>>
>> What are Lobian numbers? Can you give a reference? I know little bit 
>> about Godel’s work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider any Turing universal machinery, for example the programming 
>> language c++. 
>>
>> N is the set of natural numbers.
>>
>> It is known that the enumeration of all programs computing a (perhaps not 
>> everywhere defined) function from N to N exists, and so we get a list of 
>> all partial computable function phi_i from N to N. (i.e. phi_0, phi_1, 
>> phi_2, …), by enumerating the program with one natural number argument) 
>> written in C++, in their lexico-graphical order (length, and alphabetical 
>> for the programs with the same length).
>>
>> We can define a universal number as a number u such that phI_u(x, y) = 
>> phi_x(y). We say that u implements x on y. (It is a constructive definition 
>> of a computer in the language of the computer).
>>
>> Now, once we have a universal number, we can transform/extend it into a 
>> theory, which is the first order logical specification of how u operates. 
>> That is a standard mapping from, say, c++ to a Turing universal logical 
>> theory. 
>>
>> I assume we have done that, so now I say that a universal number is 
>> Löbian when it has enough induction axioms (added to its logical 
>> specification) so that it can prove enough of some special formula. 
>>
>> If “[]” represents the provability predicate (Gödel 1931)of some first 
>> order Turing universal theory/number, Löbian means that it can prove p -> 
>> []p for all p equivalent with a semi-computable predicate known as sigma_1 
>> predicate). In fact “p -> []p” is equivalent with Turing universality, and 
>> if a Universal can prove this for all p sigma_1, it will not only be Turing 
>> universal, but it will know (in some technical sense) that it is T

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or equivalently 
>> (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the (logical) equation x 
>> <-> ~[]x.
> 
> ?? What does this proof look like? 

?

That is Gödel’s second theorem, axiomatised in G. p is a sentence equivalent 
with its non provability (p <-> ~[]p), and Gödel, already in his 1931 papers 
suggests that this entails that p is equivalent with consistency (<>t).

That has been proved by Hilbert and Bernays later, and generalised and 
simplified by Löb.




> Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ?

? 

That is true for an inconstant theory. (Typo error?).

If the theory is consistent then 

1) t <-> ~[]f(t, not f),

2) but the theory/machine/Löbian-number  cannot prove “1)”.

Bruno



> 
> 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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:41, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. 
>> The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
>> extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can 
>> show old theories to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need some 
>> faith.
> 
> When it's based on evidence, it's not faith.

It is not blind faith. But still faith if the believe pertains on a reality. 
Any belief in a fundamental reality requires faith. Nobody can prove the 
existence of any reality.

Bruno

> 
> 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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
 understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis 
 facts).
>>> 
>>> That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in "Do 
>>> you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can agree on 
>>> facts.  The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to prove that the 
>>> Earth is round to the head of the Flat Earth Society is a cautionary tale 
>>> about that.
>> 
>> Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when 
>> metaphysics is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will not 
>> start with “do you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like
>> 
>> 0 ≠ s(x)
>> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
>> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
>> x+0 = x
>> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>> x*0=0
>> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>> 
>> And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. For 
>> example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, the 
>> teacher, say, will say to wait when they will study an axiomatisation of all 
>> integers, but that today they axiomatise only the non negative integers.
>> 
>> Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when used 
>> informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic method, and 
>> there is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology scientifically, 
>> your own private opinion in the matter is kept silent.
>> 
>> The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that since 
>> 1500 years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical 
>> verification in that field. We tolerate the argument of authority since 
>> long, or we have no choice, or become dissident, etc.
> 
> But a scientific theory does not consist of axioms alone (or even mostly).  
> It must also include interpretations to connect it to observation. 

That is the point under debate. You assume Aristotle theology: that there is 
something to be observed.



> So it is literally meaningless to say you have derived science by an 
> axiomatic method.

I say that if mechanism is correct, very elementary arithmetic is the most that 
we can assume, and the illusion of a physical universe is entirely explain from 
inside, in the mind of the numbers who believes usually more than the axioms, 
in particular, they believe in the axioms + the induction axioms (which do not 
operate at the ontological level).

Bruno 




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:38, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.
>>> That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.
>> Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood)
> 
> To insert "well understood" is just to repeat the no true Scotsman fallacy.

It was a jokingly way to say that this requires the reading of the greek 
neoplatonist, or the knwoledge of the conclusion of the UD reasoning, or some 
knowledge of G*.

Of course (you know it. You are disingenuous again!

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> makes people recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the 
>> root, for example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G.
>> 
>> 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.

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
 forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they 
 take a religion for granted without knowing.
>>> You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
>>> Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think 
>>> material processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter 
>>> is primary, or even have the concept of primary matter.
>> What would be their alternate primitive notions?
> 
> I don't know.  Why should they agree on one.  Maybe they have different ideas 
> or consider it an unanswered question.  If I explain that my car gets energy 
> from burning gasoline are you going to complain that I haven't said what my 
> primitive notion is?


Only if you claim that you car is a theory of mind or of everything. In this 
case, the point is that Dennett and the Churchland are inconsistent.



> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are 
>>> many levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings.
>> But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
>> things existing primitively.
> 
> Maybe.  You believe numbers exist primitively.  So what?  It hasn't helped 
> you explain quarks and electrons.

It explains already two things missed by physicalism:

- it explains why such kind of things seems to exist.

-it provides a precise road to see if those things are persistent.

Physics do not try to do that, very wisely, because it is not physics, but 
metaphysics/theology, which is another field. 

But physicalist does, and I just point out that it cannot work, unless they 
postulate a non computational theory of mind.



>> 
>> 
>>> And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter 
>>> or deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.
>> Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even 
>> say that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed 
>> brain. Not that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non 
>> material.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; 
>>> but you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.
>> Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :
>> 
>> 1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
>> Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
>> matter and matter).
> 
> But it doesn't actually to that.  At best it makes primary matter otiose, and 
> it does so at the cost of making many things exist for which there is no 
> evidence.

Which one?



> 
>> 
>> 2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, 
>> experimental evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for 
>> which there has never been any evidence at all).
> 
> There is a great deal of evidence for materialism. 

?

You confuse (I guess) the evidence for matter, and the evidence for primary 
matter (needed for materialism).



> It has succeeded as the basis for theories that not only explain but also 
> predict almost everything that is explained at all. 

It does not. Physics measures  numbers, and  extrapolate numbers relation, and 
fails to explain the relation with our subjective measuring of those numbers. 
Then with mechanism, I have explained why it *cannot* work at all.




> In contrast Platonism has never successfully predicted anything.  As Sean 
> Carroll put it, "All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on 
> the wall.”


Then we are condemned to live in the shadows, and abandon the goal of 
understanding anything. But I disagree, even the main discoveries in physics 
are based on the idea that there is something beyond the shadows, if only 
mathematical relations.

Bruno 



> 
> 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.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:25, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> > The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. 
> > The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
> > extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can 
> > show old theories to be wrong. So [...]
> 
> 
> So? If reason doesn’t work how can you have a “so”,


I did not say that reason did not work. Only that it does not work necessarily.




> how can you use reason to reach a conclusion about reason, or a conclusion 
> about anything else? 

By using lucky enough some true premise, but I can only use them as hypothesis.

A scientist who says “I know” is either talking colloquially, or is a con man.



> 
> 
>  > when applying a theory, we need some faith.
>  
> A tentative scientific hypothesis has as much to do with faith as an 
> amorphous grey vague blog has to do with God. You like the word “faith” 
> because you know your opponents don’t like it,

Procès d’intention.

Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and 
the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to believe 
the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just forget this, and 
wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful and precise.



> and you like the sound of the word “God” even though you don’t believe in the 
> concept the word symbolizes.  And none of the ignorant Greeks who have been 
> dead for thousands of years and would flunk a forth grade science test can 
> change that fact.  

That explains why you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology, which you 
take for granted, like most pseudo-religious believers. 

The difference of conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is the main 
fundamental metaphysical divide, but since theology has been taken back from 
science, most scientists are no more ware that they use Aristotle theology all 
the times, even when the facts accumulates against it, both with cognitive 
science and physics. Without backtracking to Plato, its normal to get lost in 
theological delusion.

If you believe in primary matter, and in mechanism, you are inconsistent. You 
might also try to provide just one evidence in favour of primary matter.

Bruno





> 
> 
>  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 
> .

-- 
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: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the 
Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions on-line.

https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM

https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek

He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer 
(consciousness)  is a 'misconception' of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

'Although Heisenberg did sometimes speak of a subjective element in quantum 
physics, this should not be taken to mean that the consciousness of the 
‘observer’ plays a crucial roe lint eh measurement interaction. In Physics and 
Philosophy in 1958, Heisenberg argued that “the transition from the ‘possible’ 
to the ‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation” but this transition 
occurs “applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation”. Only 
once the “interaction of the object with the measuring device” has taken place 
can we speak of the actualization, but here he was careful to point out that 
“it is not connected with the act of registration of the result, by the mind of 
observer” (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 54).'

'So where did this view come from? And how did this view come to be associated 
with the likes of Bohr and Heisenberg? Scholars have often traced this view to 
von Neumann’s analysis of measurement in his Mathematische Grundlagen der 
Quantenmechanik published in 1932 (von Neumann, 1955). Whereas in Bohr’s 
complementarity, the measurement device is described using the concepts of 
classical physics, and not according to the laws of quantum mechanics, in von 
Neumann’s presentation, the measurement device is given a quantum-mechanical 
treatment (Bub, 1995). According to von Neumann’s formal treatment of the 
problem, when we observe a quantum system, there is an instantaneous change of 
the wave function in Hilbert space – it collapses – a process which is not 
described by the Schrödinger equation. Precisely what von Neumann’s 
philosophical views on this matter were is more difficult to judge, though as 
Becker and Gavroglou have observed there is no evidence of him endorsing a 
realist view of the wave function, nor does he make any explicit reference to 
the need to introduce the consciousness of the observer in the measuring chain 
(Becker, 2004; Gavroglou, 1995, p. 171).Rather it was the 1939 monograph La 
Théorie de l’Observation en Méchanique Quantique by London and Bauer which we 
find the first explicit mention of the claim that the reduction of the wave 
function was the result of the conscious activity of the human mind (French, 
2002).'

etc etc

-- 
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.