Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

[big snip]

For Bruno:

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 6:50:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> *Thanks for the data dump. It's way above my head, so not so far above 
> that I can't see the virtue of using arithmetic logic as a starting point 
> for a new take on reality. I might buy the Kindle version of your book, 
> translated by Russell.  You might be wrong, but I give you credit for 
> tackling the arguably most intractable problem; the mind-body problem. Keep 
> in truckin'! AG*
>

*That should be, Keep ON truckin'! 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

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 3:19:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> *   So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT 
>> occur in the future, *
>>
>> The arithmetical relations do that. Consciousness only select the 
>> histories
>>
>> *and creates those worlds in anticipation? Now we're really 
>> getting deep into woo-woo territory.*
>>
>> On the contrary, we explain how the quantum physical illusion arise from 
>> all computations which are already realised in the block-mindspace given by 
>> very elementary arithmetic, that we never leave.
>>
>> Here are all my assumptions: classical logic + the axioms of arithmetic 
>> (“s” is intended to denote the successor function x+1):
>>
>> *  Please describe ambiguous (for me) symbols,  AG*
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 0 ≠ s(x)OK
>> s(x) = s(y) -> x = yOK
>> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))?
>>
>>
>> A natural number is either null, or has a predecessor. Read “Ex” by it 
>> exists a number x such that ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x+0 = xOK
>> x+s(y) = s(x+y) OK
>> x*0=0?   *Does * mean multiplication? AG*
>>
>>
>> Yes. “x” looks to much like the variable x. 
>>
>>
>>
>> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x?
>>
>>
>> x multiplied by the successor of y gives the same as x * y + x. Exemple 6 
>> * 4 = (6 * 3) + 6.
>>
>>
>> I use mechanism only to help people that this has to be a theory of 
>> everything. It explains very well consciousness (I think), and matter (as 
>> confirmed up to now).
>>
>> *What is the first step from these postulates, to anything? I mean 
>> anything. What is mechanism? *
>>
>>
>> Mechanism is the hypothesis that our body is a machine, or a natural 
>> machine-like entity. (It has been discussed in the antic China, India and 
>> greek philosopher/theologians. But you need to wait Descartes and Diderot 
>> to see it coming back, but, notably with Diderot, also its use by 
>> materialists to hide the mind-body problem.
>>
>> Digital Mechanism as I use it in this list, is slightly more precise. The 
>> notion of digital machine is the notion of Emil Post, Alonzo Church, Alan 
>> Turing, and best explained by Stephen Kleene in his papers and book, 
>> notably his “Introduction to Metamathematics” (1952). 
>> Just ask me, and I gave more on this … after the June exams, as my 
>> scheduling get tighter and tighter those days.
>>
>> *Why do we need these postulate to fix anything? *
>>
>>
>> My goal was to reformulate the mind-body problem in the frame of the 
>> Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science/philosophy-o-mind/theology.
>> Unfortunately I have been asked to solve it, which I did, but that 
>> requires some familiarity with Mathematical Logic, which is not well taught.
>> Also, the solution is disliked by the “religious” materialists, and I 
>> have underestimate the number of those in some academical circles, and 
>> their influence (I got a price for my PhD which has disappears without 
>> explanation, just to give one example …).
>>
>
> *What happened with your Ph’D? *
>
>
> It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at the 
> recievability level (I never mette them) but I defended it without any 
> problem in France (Lille), where I got the price of the best theses, with 4 
> other laureates in the French speaking world, but then the prized 
> disappeared, and the bullying (always by defamation done in my back) 
> continued and get somehow international, as it is easy to mock or 
> disbelieve someone who say we were wrong since a very long time. But all 
> scientists doing their job have no problem with it, if only because they 
> understand the question raised, and that there is not once claim of truth.
>
>
>
>
> *Are you associated with a university? Which one? Just curious. AG *
>
>
>
> I have a position at Brussels University where I did create IRIDIA, with 
> late Philippe Smets and some others. After the events IRIDIA has been 
> attached to the Faculty of Applied Science. Engineers are more rigorous in 
> metaphysics than scientist whose often confuse hypotheses and dogma. Not 
> all scientists of course. I have worked with Englert, Brout, Nardone, Gross 
> and others at the time Brout and Englert discovered the “Higgs Boson”. I 
> have a very minor role there, except reassuring François Englert that 
> quantum mechanics makes sense even in cosmology. He added a footnote in a 
> paper suggesting the perplex reader to read Everett for a QM making sense 
> without external observer.
>
>
>
>
>
> *What is the problem you're trying to fix? *
>>
>>
>> The mind-body problem. How a grey brain can create a color perception, 
>> for example. 
>>
>

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>>
>>> From: Bruno Marchal >> Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found 
>>> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although with 
>>> different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously depend of 
>>> what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the wave, you get that 
>>> what they find is independent of the choice of the base used to describe 
>>> the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the MW would already be refuted.
>>>
>>>
>>> In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is 
>>> dependent on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments would 
>>> not have definite results when described in the laboratory from the 1p 
>>> perspective. Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- 
>>> which is, I agree, independent of the basis in which it is described -- the 
>>> view of any observer embedded in the multiverse is totally basis-dependent. 
>>> That is, after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- the view from within, or 
>>> the 1p view. But that view depends on how you describe it: the way in which 
>>> you partition the multiverse itself. Only certain very special bases are 
>>> robust against environmental decoherence -- how else do you resolve the 
>>> Schrödinger cat issue?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> *So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence 
>> theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time?  AG*
>>
>>
>> Decoherence has resolved the basis question long before the cyanide has 
>> hit the cat.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *I don't think you've answered the question. Isn't the cat in a 
> superposition of alive and dead before the cyanide hits? Did Schroedinger 
> write an incorrect wf? If so, what is the correct one IYO? AG *
>

*I surmise your position is that decoherence happens so quickly, that the 
superposition Schroedinger wrote was really a mixed state. If so, I don't 
see this as a solution to the paradox, unless you want to allow the 
existence of a simultaneously alive and dead cat for a very, very short 
time. 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

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: Bruno Marchal > Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found 
>> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although with 
>> different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously depend of 
>> what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the wave, you get that 
>> what they find is independent of the choice of the base used to describe 
>> the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the MW would already be refuted.
>>
>>
>> In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is 
>> dependent on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments would 
>> not have definite results when described in the laboratory from the 1p 
>> perspective. Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- 
>> which is, I agree, independent of the basis in which it is described -- the 
>> view of any observer embedded in the multiverse is totally basis-dependent. 
>> That is, after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- the view from within, or 
>> the 1p view. But that view depends on how you describe it: the way in which 
>> you partition the multiverse itself. Only certain very special bases are 
>> robust against environmental decoherence -- how else do you resolve the 
>> Schrödinger cat issue?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence 
> theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time?  AG*
>
>
> Decoherence has resolved the basis question long before the cyanide has 
> hit the cat.
>
> Bruce
>

*I don't think you've answered the question. Isn't the cat in a 
superposition of alive and dead before the cyanide hits? Did Schroedinger 
write an incorrect wf? If so, what is the correct one IYO? 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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
>> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy 
>> (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in 
>> superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in 
>> the latter. Stay tuned. AG
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
>> been experimentally verified.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is interpreted. 
> Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. AG
>
>
> Use Wikipedia!
>
> But an overview by Zeh, the founder of decoherence, 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512078, or the review by Schlosshauer 
> should help.
>
> Bruce
>

*I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in 2004 in 
remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s Varying 
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics".  For me the "tell" that it can't be 
right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously noted) is 
the fact that it implies copies of worlds. 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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *Bruno Marchal* *So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence 
theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time?  AG*


Decoherence has resolved the basis question long before the cyanide has 
hit the cat.


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: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by
>> assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything
>
>

*​>​False. I start from the assumption that I can survive from a digital
> emulation of my brain at some level.*
>

Then why in the world did you say " With mechanism, obviously a soul, or a
first person experience can be duplicated from a third person pov. But not
from a first person pov"?


> ​>>​
>> EXCEPT for
>> ​the​
>>  first person pov,
>
>
> *​>​EXCEPT *from*, not for.*
>

​I​
 don't see why mechanism can't duplicate experience *from* the first person
pov, but its "obvious" to you so you should have no difficulty explaining
why with clear precise words, and in English not Brunospeak.

*​>​Mechanism cannot duplicate or do something.*


I won't say that's the silliest thing you've ever said but its in the top
10.​


> ​>>​observers will feel things after both the Everett type split and the
>> duplicating machine type split, and if the environments they are put into
>> are different then what they feel will be different and they will become
>> different people from that point on, although both will remember being the
>> same person before the split (or walking into the copying machine).
>
>
> *​>​OK then, but that entails the first person indeterminacy for the
> self-duplication.*
>

There is nothing indeterminate about that, its all 100% predictable. ​


​>>​
>> ​l​ike most of the wise men you recommend on this list the guy who
>> dreamed up Theaetetus would flunk a freshman algebra test
>
>
> *​>​No. He was a great mathematician. He proved the irrationality of all
> square root of non perfect square.*
>

We've known how to solve cubic equations since 1530, but not one of your
ancient Greeks could, and in physics astronomy and biology they were even
more ignorant than in mathematics. So why would anybody working on modern
scientific problems be interested in what they ancient Greeks had to say
about anything?

<*sigh*>
>

​​

​ 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 Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal >
>
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:
>
>
> The SWE does not give a preferred basis. Basing MWI on the Schrödinger 
> equation runs into the basis problem. Few MWI advocates actually take this 
> seriously. And they should.
>
>
> The relative proportion of histories do not depend on the choice of the 
> base, so the base we use are chosen endemically, like the present moment 
> for example, in the whole of physics. Obviously, we needs brain to assess 
> our results and communicating, and some works, like sure and others, 
> justify the indexical importance of the position base, with respect to the 
> branch where intelligence can develop.
>
>
> What on earth are you talking about? The position basis is not 
> well-defined either. The Hilbert space corresponding to the position 
> operator X has an infinite number of possible bases -- just like any other 
> Hilbert space. Any linear vector space has an infinite number of possible 
> bases. How do you choose which one you are going to use? Talking about the 
> relative proportion of histories sounds just like the long-since refuted 
> branch counting approach to probabilities. 
>
>
> Measure is quite different from counting.
>
>
> And the probabilities for various outcomes most certainly depend on the 
> chosen base, as do the outcomes themselves.
>
>
> Well, we can use what we call in French “le peigne de Dirac”. To make that 
> precise Laurent Schwartz has invented the theory of distribution. I 
> simplify things here. Consider that space has been quantised, like in 
> Loop-Gravity or something. Here, you do a 1004 fallacy, with respect to the 
> goal (helping Grayson to have an idea of what is QM-without-collapse).
>
>
> ?
>
>
> * In this situation, what is the role of the SWE since the wf is usually 
> asserted without any reference to it? Now consider a general case where the 
> wf for a system is determined using the SWE. Since the solution can be 
> expanded using difference bases, say E or p, does each possible expansion, 
> each implying a different possible set of measurements, imply a different 
> set of worlds using the SWE? TIA, AG*
>
>
> The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the system. To 
> define the problem you have to specify a wave function. It is in the 
> expansion of this wave function in terms of a set of possible eigenvalues 
> that the preferred basis problem arises. So it is not really down to the SE 
> itself, it is a matter for the wave function. Each expansion basis defines 
> a set of worlds, and all bases give different worlds.
>
>
> That is correct, but the choice of the basis don’t change the relative 
> “proportion of histories”.
>
>
> The choice of basis makes all the difference in the world. 
>
>
> Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found 
> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although with 
> different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously depend of 
> what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the wave, you get that 
> what they find is independent of the choice of the base used to describe 
> the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the MW would already be refuted.
>
>
> In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is dependent 
> on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments would not have 
> definite results when described in the laboratory from the 1p perspective. 
> Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- which is, I 
> agree, independent of the basis in which it is described -- the view of any 
> observer embedded in the multiverse is totally basis-dependent. That is, 
> after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- the view from within, or the 1p 
> view. But that view depends on how you describe it: the way in which you 
> partition the multiverse itself. Only certain very special bases are robust 
> against environmental decoherence -- how else do you resolve the 
> Schrödinger cat issue?
>
> Bruce
>

*So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence 
theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time?  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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>>
>> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
>> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy 
>> (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in 
>> superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in 
>> the latter. Stay tuned. AG
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
>> been experimentally verified.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is interpreted. 
> Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. AG 
>

If you read my introduction carefully, you will note that I implicitly 
limited my claim. I assert that decoherence theory cannot apply to macro 
systems for which a definable deBroglie wave length does not exist. It 
could be valid for a tiny class of macro objects such as Buckyballs. 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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:14:55 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: 
>>
>>
>>
>> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
>> implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy 
>> (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in 
>> superpositions, which is more or less the starting state equation used in 
>> the latter. Stay tuned. AG
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
>> been experimentally verified.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is interpreted. 
> Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. AG 
>

If you read my introduction, I am implicitly denying that decoherence 
theory can be valid for macro objects for which no definable deBroglie wave 
length exists. So it may have been verified for a limited class of macro 
objects such as Buckyballs. 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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's
Cat implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows
the fallacy (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating
macro systems in superpositions, which is more or less the
starting state equation used in the latter. Stay tuned. AG


I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after
all, been experimentally verified.

Bruce


It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is 
interpreted. Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. AG


Use Wikipedia!

But an overview by Zeh, the founder of decoherence, 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512078, or the review by Schlosshauer 
should help.


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: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>

On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett  
wrote:



The SWE does not give a preferred basis. Basing MWI on the 
Schrödinger equation runs into the basis problem. Few MWI advocates 
actually take this seriously. And they should.


The relative proportion of histories do not depend on the choice of 
the base, so the base we use are chosen endemically, like the 
present moment for example, in the whole of physics. Obviously, we 
needs brain to assess our results and communicating, and some works, 
like sure and others, justify the indexical importance of the 
position base, with respect to the branch where intelligence can 
develop.


What on earth are you talking about? The position basis is not 
well-defined either. The Hilbert space corresponding to the position 
operator X has an infinite number of possible bases -- just like any 
other Hilbert space. Any linear vector space has an infinite number 
of possible bases. How do you choose which one you are going to use? 
Talking about the relative proportion of histories sounds just like 
the long-since refuted branch counting approach to probabilities.


Measure is quite different from counting.


And the probabilities for various outcomes most certainly depend on 
the chosen base, as do the outcomes themselves.


Well, we can use what we call in French “le peigne de Dirac”. To make 
that precise Laurent Schwartz has invented the theory of distribution. 
I simplify things here. Consider that space has been quantised, like 
in Loop-Gravity or something. Here, you do a 1004 fallacy, with 
respect to the goal (helping Grayson to have an idea of what is 
QM-without-collapse).


?


*In this situation, what is the role of the SWE since the wf is 
usually asserted without any reference to it? Now consider a 
general case where the wf for a system is determined using the 
SWE. Since the solution can be expanded using difference bases, 
say E or p, does each possible expansion, each implying a 
different possible set of measurements, imply a different set of 
worlds using the SWE? TIA, AG*


The Schrödinger equation merely gives the time evolution of the 
system. To define the problem you have to specify a wave function. 
It is in the expansion of this wave function in terms of a set of 
possible eigenvalues that the preferred basis problem arises. So it 
is not really down to the SE itself, it is a matter for the wave 
function. Each expansion basis defines a set of worlds, and all 
bases give different worlds.


That is correct, but the choice of the basis don’t change the 
relative “proportion of histories”.


The choice of basis makes all the difference in the world.


Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I 
found “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although 
with different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously 
depend of what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the 
wave, you get that what they find is independent of the choice of the 
base used to describe the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the 
MW would already be refuted.


In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is 
dependent on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments 
would not have definite results when described in the laboratory from 
the 1p perspective. Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole 
multiverse -- which is, I agree, independent of the basis in which it is 
described -- the view of any observer embedded in the multiverse is 
totally basis-dependent. That is, after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- 
the view from within, or the 1p view. But that view depends on how you 
describe it: the way in which you partition the multiverse itself. Only 
certain very special bases are robust against environmental decoherence 
-- how else do you resolve the Schrödinger cat issue?


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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 12:01:39 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > > 
> > > What happened with your Ph’D? 
> > 
> > It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at 
> the recievability level (I never mette them) but I defended it without any 
> problem in France (Lille), where I got the price of the best theses, with 4 
> other laureates in the French speaking world, but then the prized 
> disappeared, and the bullying (always by defamation done in my back) 
> continued and get somehow international, as it is easy to mock or 
> disbelieve someone who say we were wrong since a very long time. But all 
> scientists doing their job have no problem with it, if only because they 
> understand the question raised, and that there is not once claim of truth. 
>
> Plug needed for the book "Amoeba's Secret", which details the story, 
> and is the (English translation of the) book for which the prize was give. 
>
> And note above that Bruno mixes up prize and price in English - they 
> are the same word in French (well technically homonyms) - prix. 
>

Thanks for the clarification. Looks like an interesting story. Looks like 
Bruno picked the hardest problem to tackle. AG 

>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
>
> Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat implies 
> that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy (or, if 
> you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in superpositions, 
> which is more or less the starting state equation used in the latter. Stay 
> tuned. AG
>
>
> I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
> been experimentally verified.
>
> Bruce
>

It depends on what "experimentally verified" means, how it is interpreted. 
Send a few links so I can factor them into my analysis. 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: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 8 Jun 2018, at 16:26, John Clark  wrote:
> > 
> 
> > and didn't even know where the sun went at night. You've recommended many 
> > many books on this list but only a very small number of them were written 
> > by authors who have been dead for less than a century, but even those books 
> > are unable to calculate 2+2.

ISTM, the bulk of the books Bruno cites are 20th century, mostly
mid-20th C. This is not surprising: a) because the 20th C was an
explosion of human knowledge, and most of the key concepts Bruno
relies on were elucidated in the early-mid 20th C; b) like most of us,
Bruno did most of his formative reading in his teens and twenties,
which corresponds to the 1960-70s in his case, and c) it is bloody hard
keeping up with 21st century literature, there's so much of it.

I enjoy Bruno's inclusion of ancient texts, both for the colour, and
for the feeling of hubris you get when you realise someone living 2000
years ago got surprisingly close to the mark. But his arguments do not
depend on those texts at all.


-- 


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

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 09:53:37AM -0700, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >
> > *Edwin Schrodinger. AG*
> >
> >
> > Erwin Schroedinger.  (To AG).
> >
> 
> OK, but how does one type the umlaut? AG 

He was more correcting Edwin to Erwin. But to answer your question,
there are many way. For instance, in emacs (which I use), select
Options>MultiLingualEnvironment>Toggle Input Method. Select tex as the
input method.

Then typing \"o will give ö.

But Germans accept ae ⇔ ä, oe ⇔ ö, ue ⇔ ü and ss ⇔ ß, when written on
keyboards without those symbols.


-- 


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

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > 
> > What happened with your Ph’D?
> 
> It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at the 
> recievability level (I never mette them) but I defended it without any 
> problem in France (Lille), where I got the price of the best theses, with 4 
> other laureates in the French speaking world, but then the prized 
> disappeared, and the bullying (always by defamation done in my back) 
> continued and get somehow international, as it is easy to mock or disbelieve 
> someone who say we were wrong since a very long time. But all scientists 
> doing their job have no problem with it, if only because they understand the 
> question raised, and that there is not once claim of truth.

Plug needed for the book "Amoeba's Secret", which details the story,
and is the (English translation of the) book for which the prize was give.

And note above that Bruno mixes up prize and price in English - they
are the same word in French (well technically homonyms) - prix.


-- 


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: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>



Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat 
implies that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the 
fallacy (or, if you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro 
systems in superpositions, which is more or less the starting state 
equation used in the latter. Stay tuned. AG


I wish you luck in proving decoherence theory false. It has, after all, 
been experimentally verified.


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: Primary matter

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> I don't care who led what, and neither physics nor mathematical logic is
>> religion.  I asked 3 times but you did not provide one single example of an
>> improvement in theology between 500BC and 500AD . Not one.
>
>
> ​>​
> *The improvement is from believing in giant Turtles to both modern physics
> and mathematics,*
>

God creating the world in 4004 BC in 6 days is just as inconsistent with
the facts as the Earth being held up by a giant turtle,  and God tricking
is to torture His son to death so He could forgive us for eating a apple is
just as stupid as a turtle.  And  neither modern physics  nor mathematics
is theology.  I asked  4  times but you did not provide one single example
of an improvement in theology between 500BC and 500AD . Not one.
>
>
​>>​
>> So you don't know of an example of a improvement in theology  made
>> between 500BC and 500AD but for some unspecified reason you believe there
>> may be such a example somewhere in some book and you want me to try to find
>> one.
>
>
>
> > No, I want you to read them, and understand the improvement by yoursel
> ​f
>

So if I read all the ancient books you recommend I could someday be smart
just like you? No thanks.



> ​> ​
> You just cannot separate theology of science, without making them both
> inexact and inhuman.
>

I have no idea if that's true or not because I have no idea what "theology
of science " means. Bruno, I don't believe you can write clearly in ANY
language, except of course for Brunospeak, and only one person on the
planet is fluent in Brunospeak. For example:

*​"​your use of “primary matter”, that you call simply “matter” is not just
theological, but is invalid from a scientist (in theology) point of view.​"*

In the unlikely event there is a God even He doesn't know what that means.

*​> ​Fundamental science and religion have always been the same thing​.​*


So the pope is a scientist as was Osama bin Laden, Einstein was a rabbi,
and the words physics, mathematics, and even science should all be retired
and replace by the single word "theology".  I'm curious, does anybody
besides Bruno think that would be a good idea?

​John K Clark​



> So you don't know of an example of a improvement in theology  made between
500BC and 500AD but for some unspecified reason you believe there may be
such a example somewhere in some book and you want me to try to find one.

No, I want you to read them, and understand the improvement by yourself

-- 
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 Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:22:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> From:  
>
>
> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>>
>> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a 
>> superposition was a fallacy? 
>>
>
> *Edwin Schrodinger. AG*
>
>
> Erwin Schroedinger.  (To AG).
>

OK, but how does one type the umlaut? AG 

>
> Schrödinger thought it was an absurdity, not a fallacy because he saw it 
> as a consequence of his wave equation.(BK)
>
>  | Yes. (BM)
 
*Same question I posed to Bruce: And the difference between an absurdity 
and a fallacy is WHAT?  AG*

> But decoherence theory remove the absurdity. (BK)
>
> *I disagree, but will discuss it a new thread. AG *

[snip]

-- 
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.

Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

Later, hopefully soon, I will make the case that Schrodinger's Cat implies 
that Decoherence Theory false, since the former shows the fallacy (or, if 
you will, the absurdity), of incorporating macro systems in superpositions, 
which is more or less the starting state equation used in the latter. Stay 
tuned. 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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Jun 2018, at 01:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:06:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 03:30, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:07:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>So consciousness anticipates all quantum experiment that MIGHT occur 
> in the future,
> 
> The arithmetical relations do that. Consciousness only select the histories
> 
> and creates those worlds in anticipation? Now we're really getting 
> deep into woo-woo territory.
> 
> On the contrary, we explain how the quantum physical illusion arise from all 
> computations which are already realised in the block-mindspace given by very 
> elementary arithmetic, that we never leave.
> 
> Here are all my assumptions: classical logic + the axioms of arithmetic (“s” 
> is intended to denote the successor function x+1):
> 
>   Please describe ambiguous (for me) symbols,  AG
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 ≠ s(x)OK
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = yOK
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))?
> 
> A natural number is either null, or has a predecessor. Read “Ex” by it exists 
> a number x such that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x+0 = xOK
> x+s(y) = s(x+y) OK
> x*0=0?   Does * mean multiplication? AG
> 
> Yes. “x” looks to much like the variable x. 
> 
> 
> 
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x?
> 
> x multiplied by the successor of y gives the same as x * y + x. Exemple 6 * 4 
> = (6 * 3) + 6.
>> 
>> I use mechanism only to help people that this has to be a theory of 
>> everything. It explains very well consciousness (I think), and matter (as 
>> confirmed up to now).
>> 
>> What is the first step from these postulates, to anything? I mean anything. 
>> What is mechanism?
> 
> Mechanism is the hypothesis that our body is a machine, or a natural 
> machine-like entity. (It has been discussed in the antic China, India and 
> greek philosopher/theologians. But you need to wait Descartes and Diderot to 
> see it coming back, but, notably with Diderot, also its use by materialists 
> to hide the mind-body problem.
> 
> Digital Mechanism as I use it in this list, is slightly more precise. The 
> notion of digital machine is the notion of Emil Post, Alonzo Church, Alan 
> Turing, and best explained by Stephen Kleene in his papers and book, notably 
> his “Introduction to Metamathematics” (1952). 
> Just ask me, and I gave more on this … after the June exams, as my scheduling 
> get tighter and tighter those days.
>> Why do we need these postulate to fix anything?
> 
> My goal was to reformulate the mind-body problem in the frame of the 
> Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science/philosophy-o-mind/theology.
> Unfortunately I have been asked to solve it, which I did, but that requires 
> some familiarity with Mathematical Logic, which is not well taught.
> Also, the solution is disliked by the “religious” materialists, and I have 
> underestimate the number of those in some academical circles, and their 
> influence (I got a price for my PhD which has disappears without explanation, 
> just to give one example …).
> 
> What happened with your Ph’D?

It was rejected by my old bullying-friends in Brussels University,, at the 
recievability level (I never mette them) but I defended it without any problem 
in France (Lille), where I got the price of the best theses, with 4 other 
laureates in the French speaking world, but then the prized disappeared, and 
the bullying (always by defamation done in my back) continued and get somehow 
international, as it is easy to mock or disbelieve someone who say we were 
wrong since a very long time. But all scientists doing their job have no 
problem with it, if only because they understand the question raised, and that 
there is not once claim of truth.



> Are you associated with a university? Which one? Just curious. AG 


I have a position at Brussels University where I did create IRIDIA, with late 
Philippe Smets and some others. After the events IRIDIA has been attached to 
the Faculty of Applied Science. Engineers are more rigorous in metaphysics than 
scientist whose often confuse hypotheses and dogma. Not all scientists of 
course. I have worked with Englert, Brout, Nardone, Gross and others at the 
time Brout and Englert discovered the “Higgs Boson”. I have a very minor role 
there, except reassuring François Englert that quantum mechanics makes sense 
even in cosmology. He added a footnote in a paper suggesting the perplex reader 
to read Everett for a QM making sense without external observer.




> 
>> What is the problem you're trying to fix?
> 
> The mind-body problem. How a grey brain can create a color perception, for 
> example.
> 
> Unsolved IMO, Not a trivial problem. AG


Glad to hear this.


>  
> But it is more deep than that, as eventually, Mechanism is shown incompatible 
> with materialism and/or physicalism, which is the actual paradigm in most

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Jun 2018, at 03:52, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>
>> 
>> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:22:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>> 
>> Are you trolling? Who claimed that having macrosopic entities in a 
>> superposition was a fallacy?
>> 
>> Edwin Schrodinger. AG

Erwin Schroedinger.  (To AG).


> 
> Schrödinger thought it was an absurdity, not a fallacy because he saw it as a 
> consequence of his wave equation.

Yes.


> But decoherence theory remove the absurdity.

Partially  with Everett. It remains still  more absurd  with Copenhagen, or at 
least unclear.
The absurdity is entirely removed with mechanism, as long as its prediction are 
correct (of course).

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: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 16:26, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>  I said information was as close as you can get to the traditional 
> >> religious concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific 
> >> method. In the past I pointed out exactly what those similarities and 
> >> differences were, I will repeat them now:
> 
> * The soul is non material and so is information.
> * It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the 
> same is true for information.
> *The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the 
> same situation is true for information.
>  
> *The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information.  
>  
> > Well. Thanks. Brent was quoting me, but your answer is not too bad.
>  
> >>But there are important differences too.
> 
> *A soul is unique but information can be duplicated.
> 
> >  With mechanism, obviously a soul, or a first person experience can be 
> > duplicated from a third person pov. But not from a first person pov,
> 
> And that is one (of many) problems with your “proof”. You start off by 
> assuming a physical mechanism can duplicate everything


False. I start from the assumption that I can survive from a digital emulation 
of my brain at some level. From this I have deduced many years ago the 
non-cloning theorem (without assuming quantum mechanics nor even an ontological 
 physical universe).




> EXCEPT for ​the​ first person pov,


EXCEPT *from*, not for.



> and then at the end you conclude you have proven mechanism can duplicate 
> everything EXCEPT for ​the​ first person pov .


Mechanism cannot duplicate or do something. Your phrasing is non sensical, and 
as often, you don’t seem to listen to what I say, and attribute me non sense 
that I have never asserted.



> 
> > you say that with Everett the observer does not feel the split.
> 
> Yes, but observers will feel things after both the Everett type split and the 
> duplicating machine type split, and if the environments they are put into are 
> different then what they feel will be different and they will become 
> different people from that point on, although both will remember being the 
> same person before the split (or walking into the copying machine).

OK then, but that entails the first person indeterminacy for the 
self-duplication. You make my point.



> 
> >> *The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but information is 
> >> understandable, in fact, information is the ONLY thing that is 
> >> understandable.
> 
> > Theaetetus is *the* counterexample to this,
> 
> That is of course Bullshit, and like most of the wise men you recommend on 
> this list the guy who dreamed up Theaetetus would flunk a freshman algebra 
> test


No. He was a great mathematician. He proved the irrationality of all square 
root of non perfect square.

And his definition of knowledge is one of the main improvement in theology for 
that period.



> and didn't even know where the sun went at night. You've recommended many 
> many books on this list but only a very small number of them were written by 
> authors who have been dead for less than a century, but even those books are 
> unable to calculate 2+2.




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: Primary matter

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Jun 2018, at 20:14, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​​>> ​Here? Where? You said there were many improvements in theology between 
> 500BC and 500AD and I asked for examples, and for the second time you were 
> unable to provide a single one. ​
> 
> ​> ​I provided them; already twice in this thread. You are simply lying here. 
> I gave the references.
> 
> You provided a list of people, you did not provide one single example of an 
> improvement in theology made between 500BC and 500AD . Not one.
> 
> ​>> ​​Be specific! What improvement in theology are you referring to? ​
>  
> ​> ​This who led to the first of mathematics, physics,  up to mathematical 
> logic.
> 
> I don't care who led what, and neither physics nor mathematical logic is 
> religion.  I asked 3 times but you did not provide one single example of an 
> improvement in theology between 500BC and 500AD . Not one.  

The improvement is from believing in giant Turtles to both modern physics and 
mathematics, and eventually that the ultimate reality is a immaterial  sort of 
person. It is slow and hard to explain, especially to someone having show so 
much bad faith, that I will not try to develop. But the improvement has stopped 
in Occident with the assassination of Hypatia (who was teaching math and 
Pltonius theology in Alexandria) and more so with Justinian closure or Plato 
Academy. Theology has continued to progress in the middle-east, up to Averroes. 
Unfortunately, in the Middle-east, Al Ghazali will win the date against 
Averroes, and science, including theology, will decline in the Middle-east 
since then. But Averoes ideas will survive in part and come “back” in Occident, 
leading to the renaissance. 

The big difference between Averoes and Al Ghazali is that Averoes explains that 
in theology, (which really just meant for him: fundamental science) the 
interpretation of texts and experiences has to be subdued to reason, where Al 
Ghazali defends, like the Muslim Brotherhood today, the idea that reason must 
be subdued to texts, which is a total drawback from the rational approach of 
the greek Theologian (again from Pythagorus to Damascus). That subduction of 
reason to texts is what allowed the political use of religion, which is a 
technic of control of people by “special interest”.

You just cannot separate theology of science, without making them both inexact 
and inhuman.

If the christians did not fall in that trap themselves, we would have avoided 
1500 years of dark ages, and we might not ever been so naïve to believe that 
there is a primary physical universe, given that there has never been any 
evidences for it.






>  
> ​> ​I gave the references, just read them.
> 
> So you don't know of an example of a improvement in theology  made between 
> 500BC and 500AD but for some unspecified reason you believe there may be such 
> a example somewhere in some book and you want me to try to find one.
> 
No, I want you to read them, and understand the improvement by yourself, but I 
make no illusion, given that you cannot understand step 3, which is far more 
simple than any of those old text. I have learned greek to be able to compare 
different translation.

Also, you seem to be not aware that your use of “primary matter”, that you call 
simply “matter” is not just theological, but is invalid from a scientist (in 
theology) point of view. 

Fundamental science and religion have always been the same thing, except when 
religion becomes a tools in (bad) politics. You just help those misuse of 
theology by special interest by refusing the coming back of reason and 
experiences in the field. You are a *de facto* ally of obscurantism. 

Bruno





> Bruno, is that really the best you can do? If it was reversed and I had said 
> something like that in our debates would it have convince you that I was 
> right? If so I could have saved a lot of time by just writing “some book 
> shows that you are wrong”
> 
> ​ over and over.​
> 
>  ​ ​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