The Arrow of Time

Implied by standard QM insofar as the theory is inherently irreversible, that is, irreversible in principle at the quantum level since the wf cannot be recovered by time reversal. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Entanglement

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0700, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > I would add this; even assuming that consciousness is ultimately based on > quantum processes, where's the argument that consciousness is responsible > for the collapse?. As I've told Clark 43 times, Feynman showed that

Re: Entanglement

On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But that's my question: Why isn't it the same?  And even if it's not how would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of

Re: Entanglement

On 4/29/2018 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: All computations can be done in a reversible way. The basic idea is that we can discard memories instead of erasing them, and that idea is coherent with physics and mechanism. Because it is theoretically possible to do computations reversibly,

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 8:43:43 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 1:16:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 6:04:31 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >>> >>> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Although the other universe is only slightly different from ours and only >> exists for a short time before it merges back into ours I think we do have >> access to another universe every time we

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 08:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 10:38 PM, agrayson2...@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

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 05:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker < meeke...@verizon.net > > >> On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Brent

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 05:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 8:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: Brent Meeker > >>> On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 04:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: Brent Meeker > > > On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 03:36, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: Brent Meeker > >>> >>> On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: John Clark

Re: Entanglement

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 02:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker < meeke...@verizon.net > > >> >> On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> From: John Clark

Re: Entanglement

> On 26 Apr 2018, at 16:23, agrayson2...@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,

Re: Entanglement

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> See my papers. We get a quantum logic for the observable. > > How do you define an observable such that everyone can agree on the observed > value? That is a complex

Re: Entanglement

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Obviates action at a distance, but not the quantum inseparability, which is >> simply linearity, which should be derived from Mechanism, and steps have >> been

Re: Entanglement

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:16, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Exactly like in arithmetic. But the interaction of Bob and Alice, does not >> make any worlds less probable, only some worlds get less accessible from >> where they

Re: Entanglement

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 12:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > >>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett < >>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >>>

Re: Entanglement

> On 24 Apr 2018, at 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/24/2018 11:48 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:26:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >> >>

Re: Measurements in QM

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 7:17:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:33:58 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: > >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: >> >>> On

Re: Entanglement

-scerir: IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords interpretation. -AG: I disagree. He's clearly criticizing the idea that all possible measurements are manifested in reality, which surely suggests other people were advancing a theory he strongly disliked. .

Re: Entanglement

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 6:21:13 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords > interpretation. > I disagree. He's clearly criticizing the idea that all possible measurements are manifested in reality, which surely suggests other people

Re: Measurements in QM

I have two questions, on a personal note and curiosity. 1) Generally speaking, at what level do you understand the content of your links, on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being full comprehension? I find them difficult and think I should start my study of QM from the beginning, using the link Brent

Re: Measurements in QM

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:33:58 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:17:54 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: > >> On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:55:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Measurements in QM

The short answer is, No. Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger evolution is unitary only with MWI. So reversible implies MWI. And since we don't have access to other MWI worlds, reversiblity is impossible for us "*in principle*. Bruce It seems interesting to point out that Vaidman

Re: Entanglement

IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords interpretation. > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Schroedinger