Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:35:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always 
> isolated, in some sense. 
>


 * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in 
 a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
 MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG *

>>>
>>> * In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
>>> insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled with 
>>> its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on 
>>> imagining it as isolated for your thought experiment, you will generate a 
>>> paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but it 
>>> also makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the cat 
>>> macroscopic, the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum. I think it 
>>> helps to think of a simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a box 
>>> which is lined with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a superposition 
>>> of undecayed and decayed and interacted with a silver halide atom.  It is 
>>> clear that it is the interaction with the silver halide atom that gets 
>>> amplified to a macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in 
>>> orthogonal "worlds" in which the spot is in different places and happens at 
>>> different times.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a 
>> macroscopic dot of silver. *
>>
>>
>> That's because you don't bother to look up anything.  You expect other 
>> people to look it up for you and then explain it to you.  Here's Wikipedia, 
>> but I'm not explaining it.
>>
>
> * The original SINGLE atom in your example is not amplified, as I 
> suspected. More important, you ducked the main issue IMO. AG *
>
>
> As Oliver Heaviside said, "I have given you an explanation.  I'm not 
> obliged to give you an understanding."
>
> Brent
>

*I don't see what your example is supposed to demonstrate; that the sliver 
of silver is macro, isolated, and then decoheres? Why is it isolated? Even 
so, how does that justify putting macro entities in superpositions? Maybe I 
should ask Heaviside. But first I need to first consult Clark who will know 
how to resurrect him (Heaviside). **AG*
 

>
>
>> *Silver halides are used in photographic film and photographic paper, 
>> including graphic art film and paper, where silver halide crystals in 
>> gelatin are coated on to a film base, glass or paper substrate. The gelatin 
>> is a vital part of the emulsion as the protective colloid of appropriate 
>> physical and chemical properties. Gelatin may also contain trace elements 
>> (such as sulfur) which increase the light sensitivity of the emulsion, 
>> although modern practice uses gelatin without such components. When 
>> absorbed by an AgX crystal, photons cause electrons to be promoted to a 
>> conduction band (de-localized electron orbital with higher energy than a 
>> valence band) which can be attracted by a sensitivity speck, which is a 
>> shallow electron trap, which may be a crystalline defect or a cluster of 
>> silver sulfide, gold, other trace elements (dopant), or combination 
>> thereof, and then combined with an interstitial silver ion to form silver 
>> metal speck.[1]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck on 
>> the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic silver 
>> (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of silver 
>> contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered developable - 
>> meaning that it can undergo development which turns the entire crystal into 
>> metallic silver. *Brent
>>
>> *Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy of using a 
>> macro entities in a superposition (since they can never be isolated). But 
>> this is the starting point of decoherence theory, as exemplified by the wf 
>> Bruce recently presented for a spin 1/2 measurement (where the apparatus, 
>> observer and remaining environment appear in the superposition). AG*
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.goo

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:12:51 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always 
> isolated, in some sense. 
>


 * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in 
 a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
 MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG *

>>>
>>> * In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
>>> insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled with 
>>> its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on 
>>> imagining it as isolated for your thought experiment, you will generate a 
>>> paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but it 
>>> also makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the cat 
>>> macroscopic, the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum. I think it 
>>> helps to think of a simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a box 
>>> which is lined with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a superposition 
>>> of undecayed and decayed and interacted with a silver halide atom.  It is 
>>> clear that it is the interaction with the silver halide atom that gets 
>>> amplified to a macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in 
>>> orthogonal "worlds" in which the spot is in different places and happens at 
>>> different times.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a 
>> macroscopic dot of silver. *
>>
>>
>> That's because you don't bother to look up anything.  You expect other 
>> people to look it up for you and then explain it to you.  Here's Wikipedia, 
>> but I'm not explaining it.
>>
>
> *The original SINGLE atom in your example is not amplified, as I 
> suspected. More important, you ducked the main issue IMO. AG *
>

*You know, if you're referring to a chemical reaction that converts some 
silver halide atoms into specks of silver, there's no particular mystery. 
This, however, is not the same as something micro become macro (which is 
how I read your comment). In any event, I fail to see how macro systems 
which cannot be isolated, and thus cannot be prepared in a superposition, 
can be represented mathematically in a superposition of states, which is 
the starting point for decoherence. AG* 

>
> *photographic paper, including graphic art film and paper, where silver 
>> halide crystals in gelatin are coated on to a film base, glass or paper 
>> substrate. The gelatin is a vital part of the emulsion as the protective 
>> colloid of appropriate physical and chemical properties. Gelatin may also 
>> contain trace elements (such as sulfur) which increase the light 
>> sensitivity of the emulsion, although modern practice uses gelatin without 
>> such components. When absorbed by an AgX crystal, photons cause electrons 
>> to be promoted to a conduction band (de-localized electron orbital with 
>> higher energy than a valence band) which can be attracted by a sensitivity 
>> speck, which is a shallow electron trap, which may be a crystalline defect 
>> or a cluster of silver sulfide, gold, other trace elements (dopant), or 
>> combination thereof, and then combined with an interstitial silver ion to 
>> form silver metal speck.[1]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck on 
>> the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic silver 
>> (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of silver 
>> contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered developable - 
>> meaning that it can undergo development which turns the entire crystal into 
>> metallic silver. *Brent
>>
>> *Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy of using a 
>> macro entities in a superposition (since they can never be isolated). But 
>> this is the starting point of decoherence theory, as exemplified by the wf 
>> Bruce recently presented for a spin 1/2 measurement (where the apparatus, 
>> observer and remaining environment appear in the superposition). AG*
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:





On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The
cat is always isolated, in some sense.

*
IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what
you wrote in a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED,
VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT MACRO MEANS. NEVER
ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG
*

*
In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be
isolated insofar as it consists of a huge number of
particles already entangled with its environment. This is
the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on imagining it as
isolated for your thought experiment, you will generate a
paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*


Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the
absurdity, but it also makes the analysis hard to think
about.  Not only is the cat macroscopic, the atomic decay is
distributed over a continuum. I think it helps to think of a
simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a box which
is lined with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a
superposition of undecayed and decayed and interacted with a
silver halide atom.  It is clear that it is the interaction
with the silver halide atom that gets amplified to a
macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in
orthogonal "worlds" in which the spot is in different places
and happens at different times.

Brent


*I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a
macroscopic dot of silver. *


That's because you don't bother to look up anything.  You expect
other people to look it up for you and then explain it to you. 
Here's Wikipedia, but I'm not explaining it.

*
The original SINGLE atom in your example is not amplified, as I 
suspected. More important, you ducked the main issue IMO. AG *


As Oliver Heaviside said, "I have given you an explanation.  I'm not 
obliged to give you an understanding."


Brent



/Silver halides are used in photographic film and photographic
paper, including graphic art film and paper, where silver halide
crystals in gelatin are coated on to a film base, glass or paper
substrate. The gelatin is a vital part of the emulsion as the
protective colloid of appropriate physical and chemical
properties. Gelatin may also contain trace elements (such as
sulfur) which increase the light sensitivity of the emulsion,
although modern practice uses gelatin without such components.
When absorbed by an AgX crystal, photons cause electrons to be
promoted to a conduction band (de-localized electron orbital with
higher energy than a valence band) which can be attracted by a
sensitivity speck, which is a shallow electron trap, which may be
a crystalline defect or a cluster of silver sulfide, gold, other
trace elements (dopant), or combination thereof, and then combined
with an interstitial silver ion to form silver metal speck.[1]//
//
//When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity
speck on the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck
of metallic silver (these comprise the invisible or latent image).
If the speck of silver contains approximately four or more atoms,
it is rendered developable - meaning that it can undergo
development which turns the entire crystal into metallic silver.

/Brent/
/

*Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy of
using a macro entities in a superposition (since they can never
be isolated). But this is the starting point of decoherence
theory, as exemplified by the wf Bruce recently presented for a
spin 1/2 measurement (where the apparatus, observer and remaining
environment appear in the superposition). AG*
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to every

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
 I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always 
 isolated, in some sense. 

>>>
>>>
>>> * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in 
>>> a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
>>> MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG *
>>>
>>
>> * In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
>> insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled with 
>> its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on 
>> imagining it as isolated for your thought experiment, you will generate a 
>> paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*
>>
>>
>> Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but it 
>> also makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the cat 
>> macroscopic, the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum. I think it 
>> helps to think of a simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a box 
>> which is lined with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a superposition 
>> of undecayed and decayed and interacted with a silver halide atom.  It is 
>> clear that it is the interaction with the silver halide atom that gets 
>> amplified to a macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in 
>> orthogonal "worlds" in which the spot is in different places and happens at 
>> different times.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a macroscopic 
> dot of silver. *
>
>
> That's because you don't bother to look up anything.  You expect other 
> people to look it up for you and then explain it to you.  Here's Wikipedia, 
> but I'm not explaining it.
>

*The original SINGLE atom in your example is not amplified, as I suspected. 
More important, you ducked the main issue IMO. AG *

>
> *Silver halides are used in photographic film and photographic paper, 
> including graphic art film and paper, where silver halide crystals in 
> gelatin are coated on to a film base, glass or paper substrate. The gelatin 
> is a vital part of the emulsion as the protective colloid of appropriate 
> physical and chemical properties. Gelatin may also contain trace elements 
> (such as sulfur) which increase the light sensitivity of the emulsion, 
> although modern practice uses gelatin without such components. When 
> absorbed by an AgX crystal, photons cause electrons to be promoted to a 
> conduction band (de-localized electron orbital with higher energy than a 
> valence band) which can be attracted by a sensitivity speck, which is a 
> shallow electron trap, which may be a crystalline defect or a cluster of 
> silver sulfide, gold, other trace elements (dopant), or combination 
> thereof, and then combined with an interstitial silver ion to form silver 
> metal speck.[1]*
>
>
>
> *When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck on 
> the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic silver 
> (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of silver 
> contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered developable - 
> meaning that it can undergo development which turns the entire crystal into 
> metallic silver. *Brent
>
> *Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy of using a 
> macro entities in a superposition (since they can never be isolated). But 
> this is the starting point of decoherence theory, as exemplified by the wf 
> Bruce recently presented for a spin 1/2 measurement (where the apparatus, 
> observer and remaining environment appear in the superposition). AG*
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 11 Jun 2018, at 14:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


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

Only in the sense that the biological brain has evolved through 
decoherence with respect to some base, but as you say, that process 
lead to the same result from the 1p perspective of those who have 
chosen the base, or have the base imposed through decoherence and 
evolution, say.
If not then QM would be inconsistent, and had to different laws of 
physics for different observers.


[BK] That would be the result absent decoherence to the stable basis 
for any measurement.



OK. We don’t differ on the fundamentals. I would need to revise Zurek 
and Zeh to assures myself that some base are more stable than other 
for physical reason (and not simply Everett-anthropic one),


I don't think an anthropic approach is adequate here. That relies on 
some unexplained magic to account for the fact that evolution has 
selected our brains to perceive in some preferred basis. But that is not 
an explanation -- that is an excuse. I don't know if Zeh has actually 
explored this in more detail. He seems content with decoherence as 
delocalization of the phases into the environment. But Zurek is quite 
critical of ending one's account there: "Popular accounts of decoherence 
... often start from the observation that when a quantum system S 
interacts with some environment E 'phase relations in S are lost'. This 
is a caricature, at best incomplete if not misleading: It begs the 
question: 'Phases between what?'. This in turn leads directly to the 
main issue addressed by einselection: 'What is the preferred basis?'. 
This question is often muddled in 'folklore' accounts of decoherence." 
(arXiv:0707.2832)


Zurek here hits the nail on the head: loss of phase relations does not 
explain what are the basis states between which phase relations are 
lost. Any more complete account must explain how preferred basis states 
emerge. Anthropic accounts just appeal to magic for this -- evolution is 
not a dynamical account of the emergence of a preferred basis. According 
to Zurek, preferred states of quantum systems emerge from the dynamics. 
In that he cannot be faulted -- there is no other non-magical way in 
which this could happen.


Schlosshauer gives a more complete account of the these dynamics than is 
given by Zurek. (Schlosshauer, arXiv:1404.2635) In summary, Schlosshauer 
points to the fact that basis states that are stable against decoherence 
are those for which the corresponding quantum operator commutes with the 
interaction Hamiltonian. I think that this is both a necessary and 
sufficient condition for states to be stable against decoherence. But 
even then, it is not an entirely satisfactory dynamical account. The 
problem is that for position measurements, for example, the stable 
states are eigenstates of the position operator, but the interaction 
Hamiltonian is generally given by point particle interactions, and those 
are themselves defined in terms of the same position operator. This is 
circular -- the same position operator defines both the basis states and 
the interaction Hamiltonian so they necessarily commute: But that would 
be true no matter what the position operator was -- provided one used 
the same operator to define both the states and the Hamiltonian. So this 
does not rule out alternative position operators which would have 
different sets of basis states, given by superpositions of our usual 
basis states. This does not, therefore, explain why we do not see 
superpositions of dots on the screen in position measurements, or 
superpositions of classical pointer readings.


I do not know the answer to this problem. I do not think that it has 
really been addressed by either Zurek or Schlosshauer. Clearly, the 
dynamics must be central to the emergence of preferred basis states, but 
I do not see a my way to a non-circular account of this. We might, 
unfortunately, be up against a 'brute fact' that has no more fundamental 
explanation. Alternatively, the answer might lie in a full quantum 
understanding of the nature of space itself -- somehow the underlying 
nature of spacetime determines that the interaction dynamics will be in 
terms of a position operator whose eigenstates are delta functions on 
the real line. Some such explanation is required.



but when I do that I eventually put myself on a slope leading to the 
problem of marrying the quantum and gravity, a nightmare from which I 
come back to mechanism rather quickly :)


I seem to have ended up with the problem of giving a quantum account of 
gravity as well. But I do not think that mechanism is going to gave you 
an answer to this.


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...

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:





On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is
always isolated, in some sense.

*
IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you
wrote in a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY
BY DEFINITION OF WHAT MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES
NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG
*

*
In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be
isolated insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles
already entangled with its environment. This is the meaning of
"macro" ! If you insist on imagining it as isolated for your
thought experiment, you will generate a paradox, as Schroedinger
did.  AG*


Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but
it also makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the
cat macroscopic, the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum.
I think it helps to think of a simpler experiment in which the
atom is just in a box which is lined with photographic plates.  So
the atom is in a superposition of undecayed and decayed and
interacted with a silver halide atom.  It is clear that it is the
interaction with the silver halide atom that gets amplified to a
macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in orthogonal
"worlds" in which the spot is in different places and happens at
different times.

Brent


*I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a 
macroscopic dot of silver. *


That's because you don't bother to look up anything.  You expect other 
people to look it up for you and then explain it to you. Here's 
Wikipedia, but I'm not explaining it.


/Silver halides are used in photographic film and photographic paper, 
including graphic art film and paper, where silver halide crystals in 
gelatin are coated on to a film base, glass or paper substrate. The 
gelatin is a vital part of the emulsion as the protective colloid of 
appropriate physical and chemical properties. Gelatin may also contain 
trace elements (such as sulfur) which increase the light sensitivity of 
the emulsion, although modern practice uses gelatin without such 
components. When absorbed by an AgX crystal, photons cause electrons to 
be promoted to a conduction band (de-localized electron orbital with 
higher energy than a valence band) which can be attracted by a 
sensitivity speck, which is a shallow electron trap, which may be a 
crystalline defect or a cluster of silver sulfide, gold, other trace 
elements (dopant), or combination thereof, and then combined with an 
interstitial silver ion to form silver metal speck.[1]//

//
//When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck 
on the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic 
silver (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of 
silver contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered 
developable - meaning that it can undergo development which turns the 
entire crystal into metallic silver.


/Brent/
/
*Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy of using 
a macro entities in a superposition (since they can never be 
isolated). But this is the starting point of decoherence theory, as 
exemplified by the wf Bruce recently presented for a spin 1/2 
measurement (where the apparatus, observer and remaining environment 
appear in the superposition). AG*

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>>> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always 
>>> isolated, in some sense. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in a 
>> recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
>> MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG *
>>
>
> * In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
> insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled with 
> its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on 
> imagining it as isolated for your thought experiment, you will generate a 
> paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*
>
>
> Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but it also 
> makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the cat macroscopic, 
> the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum. I think it helps to think 
> of a simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a box which is lined 
> with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a superposition of undecayed 
> and decayed and interacted with a silver halide atom.  It is clear that it 
> is the interaction with the silver halide atom that gets amplified to a 
> macroscopic dot of silver which decoheres the system in orthogonal "worlds" 
> in which the spot is in different places and happens at different times.
>
> Brent
>

*I don't see how a single silver halide atom is amplified to a macroscopic 
dot of silver. Going back to my analysis, I think I have shown the fallacy 
of using a macro entities in a superposition (since they can never be 
isolated). But this is the starting point of decoherence theory, as 
exemplified by the wf Bruce recently presented for a spin 1/2 measurement 
(where the apparatus, observer and remaining environment appear in the 
superposition). 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 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is
always isolated, in some sense.

*
IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote
in a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY
DEFINITION OF WHAT MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A
SUPERPOSITION. AG
*

*
In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled 
with its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist 
on imagining it as isolated for your thought experiment, you will 
generate a paradox, as Schroedinger did.  AG*


Schroedinger obviously chose a cat to emphasize the absurdity, but it 
also makes the analysis hard to think about.  Not only is the cat 
macroscopic, the atomic decay is distributed over a continuum. I think 
it helps to think of a simpler experiment in which the atom is just in a 
box which is lined with photographic plates.  So the atom is in a 
superposition of undecayed and decayed and interacted with a silver 
halide atom.  It is clear that it is the interaction with the silver 
halide atom that gets amplified to a macroscopic dot of silver which 
decoheres the system in orthogonal "worlds" in which the spot is in 
different places and happens at different times.


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

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 7:39:45 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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* 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is why I prefer Bohm’s version of the cat, where the cat alive/dead 
>>> state is corrupted with the up/down state of some particles. It ease the 
>>> mind by showing that the time is not an issue. If you can completely 
>>> isolate the cat from the environment (which is technically impossible), you 
>>> can maintain the cat in the dead + alive superposition state as long as you 
>>> want. If you isolate successfully the entire laboratory including you, 
>>> Then, someone else can resurrect the cat, relatively to himself, despite 
>>> you saw it dead. 
>>>
>>> The reason why we cannot do this in principle, is that we cannot isolate 
>>> the cat, and if the cat, when the cat is dead+alive, interact with some 
>>> particles in the environment, you can no mare factorize the cat state, 
>>> without tracking that particles.
>>>
>>> I don’t think it make sense to confine the superposition in the 
>>> microscopic domain, nor in the short-time domain. If the SWE is correct, 
>>> the superposition never disappear, unless a collapse assumption is made, 
>>> but then it cannot be described by QM. Only by QM + exception rules for the 
>>> observer or the measuring apparatus, but there are no evidences for that.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>> *See my solution to the S Cat on the other thread.  Since the cat can 
>> never be isolated, it can never be in a superposition, which generates the 
>> paradox. And since coherence can never occur, no need to apply 
>> decoherence!  AG*
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, 
>> in some sense. 
>>
>
>
> *IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in a 
> recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
> MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. AG*
>

*In the real world the cat is never isolated, nor can it be isolated 
insofar as it consists of a huge number of particles already entangled with 
its environment. This is the meaning of "macro" ! If you insist on 
imagining it as isolated for your thought ex

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 4:19:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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* 
>>
>>
>>
>> That is why I prefer Bohm’s version of the cat, where the cat alive/dead 
>> state is corrupted with the up/down state of some particles. It ease the 
>> mind by showing that the time is not an issue. If you can completely 
>> isolate the cat from the environment (which is technically impossible), you 
>> can maintain the cat in the dead + alive superposition state as long as you 
>> want. If you isolate successfully the entire laboratory including you, 
>> Then, someone else can resurrect the cat, relatively to himself, despite 
>> you saw it dead. 
>>
>> The reason why we cannot do this in principle, is that we cannot isolate 
>> the cat, and if the cat, when the cat is dead+alive, interact with some 
>> particles in the environment, you can no mare factorize the cat state, 
>> without tracking that particles.
>>
>> I don’t think it make sense to confine the superposition in the 
>> microscopic domain, nor in the short-time domain. If the SWE is correct, 
>> the superposition never disappear, unless a collapse assumption is made, 
>> but then it cannot be described by QM. Only by QM + exception rules for the 
>> observer or the measuring apparatus, but there are no evidences for that.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> *See my solution to the S Cat on the other thread.  Since the cat can 
> never be isolated, it can never be in a superposition, which generates the 
> paradox. And since coherence can never occur, no need to apply 
> decoherence!  AG*
>
>
>
> I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, 
> in some sense. 
>



*IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in a 
recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION OF WHAT 
MACRO MEANS. NEVER ISOLATED IMPLIES NEVER IN A SUPERPOSITION. 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.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 14:48, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
> > wrote:
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> I disagree. The finding can depend on what the observer decide to measure, 
>> which is akin to choosing a base,
> 
> I think there is more to it than this. We can choose a base in which to 
> describe the state, but we are not able to choose the base for the actual 
> measurement result.

I am not sure I understand. It seems to me that the base for the measurement 
result will be decided by the observer (already or later, even at the last 
moment, perhaps, like in Aspect experience).



> In a spin measurement of a spin half particle, we can decide to orient the 
> magnet at any angle to the direction of motion. For convenience in 
> understanding the dynamics, we then expand the spin wave function in the 
> basis corresponding to that orientation; that is choosing what to measure.

Yes.


> But the result of our measurement in that orientation is that the particle 
> emerges from the S-G magnet on either the up or down trajectory.

OK.


> The actual measurement is then made at screen downstream of the magnet. We do 
> not have any control over the basis for the resulting position measurement.

Ah! If that is what you mean, I am OK. But that will be a slight dispersion. Of 
course some electron, going to down could appears on the up, because the 
“position-wave" are spread, but that should be negligible with the down/up spin 
prediction.



> Decoherence decides that for us, and the stable basis for position 
> measurements is the set of delta functions at each point along the spatial 
> axis. Why do we not see the 'up' or 'down' result as a superposition of a lot 
> of different positions on the screen? We don't because such superpositions 
> are not stable under decoherence.

I will have to meditate on this. I take that decoherence is already in Everett, 
and is simply entanglement. The why our brain prefer position is a refinement, 
by Zeh indeed, and Zurek. I have not yet completely solved all problems raised 
by this. 



> 
>> but the couple “observer + that chosen base” can be studied in any base, and 
>> the same result will described in the memories of the observer. I will 
>> search Everett proofs of this, as he is the one who convinced me on this.
> 
> The situation as I understand it is the following. The original wave function 
> |psi> can be expanded in any basis that spans the corresponding Hilbert 
> space. So we can have
> 
>  |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>
>   = Sum_j d_j |b_j>,
> 
> where the |a_i> and |b_j> are sets of vectors which independently span the 
> space. The expansion coefficients are different, so in general the c_i =/=  
> d_j.
> 
> If we measure in one basis, say that of the |a_i>, the result is one of the 
> |a_i> with probability |c_i|^2. However, if the measurement corresponds to 
> the other basis (that will be a different operator in the Hilbert space), we 
> will, in general, get a different result, one of the |b_j> with probability 
> |d_j|^2.

OK.




> The results of these measurement will be different. If we now decohere these 
> states with the environment, in one case the environment will be entangled 
> with the |a_i> states, and in the other case, the environment (including the 
> observer) will be entangled with the |b_j> states.

OK. But here, the choice of the measurement just determines the future results 
of the measurement for the observer in some branches. The choice of the base 
determines our possible continuations. 



> So the observer will see different things according to the basis in which he 
> is working and the measurement made.

In that sense above, I agree. 

My sense is well explained by Everett in the Graham DeWitt selected papers, 
page 38.




> 
> Now since the bases both relate to the same Hilbert space, and the same 
> original state is expanded, the basis vectors (

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:59, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 
> 
> 
> That is why I prefer Bohm’s version of the cat, where the cat alive/dead 
> state is corrupted with the up/down state of some particles. It ease the mind 
> by showing that the time is not an issue. If you can completely isolate the 
> cat from the environment (which is technically impossible), you can maintain 
> the cat in the dead + alive superposition state as long as you want. If you 
> isolate successfully the entire laboratory including you, Then, someone else 
> can resurrect the cat, relatively to himself, despite you saw it dead. 
> 
> The reason why we cannot do this in principle, is that we cannot isolate the 
> cat, and if the cat, when the cat is dead+alive, interact with some particles 
> in the environment, you can no mare factorize the cat state, without tracking 
> that particles.
> 
> I don’t think it make sense to confine the superposition in the microscopic 
> domain, nor in the short-time domain. If the SWE is correct, the 
> superposition never disappear, unless a collapse assumption is made, but then 
> it cannot be described by QM. Only by QM + exception rules for the observer 
> or the measuring apparatus, but there are no evidences for that.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> See my solution to the S Cat on the other thread.  Since the cat can never be 
> isolated, it can never be in a superposition, which generates the paradox. 
> And since coherence can never occur, no need to apply decoherence!  AG


I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, in 
some sense. Let me prepare an electron in the state (u + d) (the superposition 
of up + down, I will not use Dirac notation, because it is not easy in mail). 
Then I put the cat near a device which kill it if the electron is down, and let 
him alive if the spin is up. 

What happens is this. In between the cat and me there are particles, some 
bouncing on the cat and other, soon or later bounding on some particles having 
bounce with the cat, or with a particles having bounced … etc.

Let us simplify, and consider that there is only one such particles, and it 
goes in the state - if the cat is dead, and in the state + if the cat is alive.

The cat is describe by C, and C°° described the cat alive, and C° describes the 
cat dead.

We have the overall state (in the box if you want) 

C(u+d)

By linearity of the tensor product (used here to describe a multi-body system), 
that is the same as the state

(C

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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
>> 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”?
>
>
> ​> *​*
> *I think this has ben explained many times,*
>

I think the internet must have failed many times because it failed to
deliver any of those explanations to me.

*> With mechanism we can duplicate you, in W and M, say. For an external
> observer who accept mechanism, there is a you conscious in W and there is a
> you conscious in M. In that sense (the 3-1 sense) your soul has been
> duplicated relatively to the external observer.*


OK, I have no problem with any of that.

*> But let us ask both the you in M and the you in W: both confirms that
> from their point of view, they have not felt any duplication, [...] at no
> moment do they have a FIRST PERSON experience of a split.*


Exactly! If the copy had noticed the duplication that would mean the
duplication process was imperfect and caused a large enough difference
between the copy and the original that the copy noticed a discontinuous
change the instant the copy button was pressed but the original noticed no
change; however this is NOT what happened, if there was any imperfections
in the copy process at all the change was too small for the copy to notice
that anything unusual happened when the copy button was pressed.

*> and the other copy is no more attached to their personal experience. It
> is a doppelgänger. They might feel intimate with their   dippelganger in
> some intellectual way, but without magic or telepathy, despite they re both
> the “H-guy”, they have become independent person,*


Forget telepathy! If 2 identical grandfather clocks are running properly
and set to the same time and you come back an hour later and notice they
still show the same time you don’t need to invoke telepathy to explain it,
indeed if they DIDN’T show the same time then you’d need to resort to some
new spooky action at a distance effect previously unknown to science.

*> Their soul has been maintained private and integral: no soul duplication
> in the soul’s first personal view.*


Stating something is not the same as proving something. You start with the
axiom that the “soul” can’t be duplicated, and end your “proof” by claiming
you’ve proven it.

*> See above*


Why?

>>There is nothing indeterminate about that, its all 100% predictable.
>
>
> >*Ok, what is your algorithm in Helsinki?*


Seeing Moscow will turn the Helsinki man into the Moscow man and seeing
Washington will turn the Helsinki man into the Washington man with 100%
certainty and no indeterminacy whatsoever.

*> how the H-person, when still in Helsinki could predict who he will feel
> to be?*


A prediction can’t be made until it is clear exactly who Mr. He is. Forget
people duplicating machines, if Mr. He means the man experiencing Helsinki
on June 11 2018 at 14:36:09 Coordinated Universal Time then Mr. He will
experience no city and no nothing tomorrow because by definition Mr. He
will not exist then. However if Mr. He means the person who remembers
experiencing Helsinki on June 11 2018 at 14:36:09 Coordinated Universal
Time and if Mr. He is duplicated then the fact that there are 2 answers to
your question is no more metaphysical or indeterminate or profound than the
fact that there and 2 correct answers to the question “What is the value of
X in this quadratic equation X^2=4 ?”. Don’t you think it would be silly to
demand to know the one and only one true answer?

*> You ignore the work of Theaetetus,*


Theaetetus wasn’t a person, Theaetetus was one of Plato’s dialogs. And the
time reading Plato is time spent not reading FAR more important things.

*> and apparently even Diophantus, who founded Algebra*


If this list existed one thousand eight hundred years ago I’d be talking a
lot about Diophantus too, but there have been a few interesting
developments since the days of Diophantus, such as the far more recent
discovery made in 1530 on how to solve cubic equations, something
Diophantus had no idea how to do.

>>why would anybody working on modern scientific problems be interested in
>> what they ancient Greeks had to say about anything?
>
>
> > *Because in theology* [...]


I don’t give a tinkers damn what is in theology nor should anyone who is
interested in modern scientific problems.

* > I use theology in the original sense, which is almost the opposite
> sense than the one used by any religious institution*


And why would Bruno deliberately cause confusion by giving familiar words
like “theology” and “God” very unfamiliar meanings that are the very
opposite of the meanings used by billions of people today? For the same
reason Bruno sprinkles personal pronouns around so liberally in thought
experiments, if your idea is bad precise language is not your friend. It is
better to be thought of as being unclear than to be thought of as being
stu

Re: Primary matter

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Telmo,


> On 11 Jun 2018, at 13:53, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting.


No problem. From tomorrow (Tuesday) to Friday, I have many oral exams (+ a 
conference in Nivelles, a city nearby). So take your time to comment and 
express the dissatisfaction. 




> 
> 
>> Ah! Let me try to answer.Keep in mind that I assume elementary arithmetic 
>> and thus computations, etc.
>> (I am not sure I need YD here, but it can help).
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Why does consciousness even exist?
>> 
>> Consciousness is somehow the doubt between consistency and truth (<>p v p).
>> 
>> All universal number self introspecting meet this, and it is felt as 
>> immediately obvious, and thus true, and undoubtable, yet non rationally 
>> justifiable, and even non definable.
> 
> I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves
> me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel
> stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point.


We might need to do some detour about what it would mean to explain 
consciousness, or matter. 
I might ask myself if you are not asking too much, perhaps. Eventually, 
something has to remain unexplainable for reason of self-consisteny. I suspect 
it will be just where our intuition of numbers or combinators, or of the 
distinction finite/infinite comes from (assuming mechanism), or just why we 
trust the doctor!



> 
>> It goes from the rough dissociated universal consciousness of Q to the 
>> elaborate self-consciousness of PA or ZF, or us.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Darwinism does not seem to require it.
>> 
>> It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it 
>> let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more 
>> efficacious machine, with respect to its most probable history.
>> So, consciousness brings a self-speedable ability, which is quite handy for 
>> self-moving being living in between a prey and a predator.
> 
> I'm not convinced. Consider a simple computer simulation where agents
> are controlled by evolving rules. Agents can eat blue or red pills.
> 90% of the time blue pills give them energy and red pills cause
> damage. 10% of the time the opposite happens. It is not possible to
> know before eating a pill. Let's say the rule system evolves to make
> the agents always eat blue pills and never red pills. Most of the time
> this helps the agents, precisely because it assumes the most probable
> histories. This is a simplified version of the sort of "decisions"
> that evolution makes, and I would say that it is reasonable to assume
> that our own evolutionary story consists of the accumulation of a
> great number of such decisions. I still don't see how consciousness
> makes a difference in such a mechanism.

The reason why consciousness makes the difference is not related to the 
environment, but is intrinsic to the machine itself.

I am aware to be quick on this, but the reason is a bit mathematically 
involved, and again, depends crucially of a discovery made by Gödel, and 
exposed in his paper “the length of proof”.

Gödel discovered the existence that if you have some essentially undecidable 
theory, like RA, PA, ZF, there are always undecidable sentences, like <>RA in 
RA, of <>ZF in ZF, etc, then if you add an undecidable sentence (in the theory 
T, say) to T, you get a theory which not only will prove infinitely more 
sentence than T, but that infinitely many proofs will be arbitrarily shorter in 
T+the undecidable sentence than the proof of it in T, making “somehow” T+the 
undecidable sentence much faster than T.

Even if the added sentence is false, we get that speeding-up (even for 
interesting sentences as Eric Vandenbussche convinced me (He thought that this 
was false, but eventually he proved that statement true).

Blum has got a similar result in computer science, and eventually Blum & 
Marquez characterised the spedable machine/set (he used the w_i instead of the 
phi_i), and he obtained the class of sub-creative set, which generalised the 
creative set (which correspond to the universal machine).
This means that if you take a slow universal machine, like the Babbage Machine, 
and a very efficacious machine, like a super-quantum computer, then you can by 
make the Babbage machine more rapid than the quantum computer on *almost* all 
inputs (= all except a finite number of exceptions), and even arbitrarily more 
rapid. Of course the “almost” limit seriously the applicability of that 
theorem, but in arithmetic, and for the FPI, that can play a rôle.

In particular, take a machine which observe itself, and as some 
inductive-inference ability. By Gödel, or G, the machine can prove that if she 
is consistent, then her consistency is not provable. The machine can also see 
that she never succeed in proving her consistency, and eventually link this 
with the fact that her consistency (<>t) is not provable. Then, the machine can 
gue

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


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.


?

I disagree. The finding can depend on what the observer decide to 
measure, which is akin to choosing a base,


I think there is more to it than this. We can choose a base in which to 
describe the state, but we are not able to choose the base for the 
actual measurement result. In a spin measurement of a spin half 
particle, we can decide to orient the magnet at any angle to the 
direction of motion. For convenience in understanding the dynamics, we 
then expand the spin wave function in the basis corresponding to that 
orientation; that is choosing what to measure. But the result of our 
measurement in that orientation is that the particle emerges from the 
S-G magnet on either the up or down trajectory. The actual measurement 
is then made at screen downstream of the magnet. We do not have any 
control over the basis for the resulting position measurement. 
Decoherence decides that for us, and the stable basis for position 
measurements is the set of delta functions at each point along the 
spatial axis. Why do we not see the 'up' or 'down' result as a 
superposition of a lot of different positions on the screen? We don't 
because such superpositions are not stable under decoherence.


but the couple “observer + that chosen base” can be studied in any 
base, and the same result will described in the memories of the 
observer. I will search Everett proofs of this, as he is the one who 
convinced me on this.


The situation as I understand it is the following. The original wave 
function |psi> can be expanded in any basis that spans the corresponding 
Hilbert space. So we can have


 |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>
  = Sum_j d_j |b_j>,

where the |a_i> and |b_j> are sets of vectors which independently span 
the space. The expansion coefficients are different, so in general the 
c_i =/=  d_j.


If we measure in one basis, say that of the |a_i>, the result is one of 
the |a_i> with probability |c_i|^2. However, if the measurement 
corresponds to the other basis (that will be a different operator in the 
Hilbert space), we will, in general, get a different result, one of the 
|b_j> with probability |d_j|^2. The results of these measurement will be 
different. If we now decohere these states with the environment, in one 
case the environment will be entangled with the |a_i> states, and in the 
other case, the environment (including the observer) will be entangled 
with the |b_j> states. So the observer will see different things 
according to the basis in which he is working and the measurement made.


Now since the bases both relate to the same Hilbert space, and the same 
original state is expanded, the basis vectors (and the expansion 
coefficients) are related, so we can always express one set in terms of 
the other:


 |a_i> = Sum_j f_{ij} |b_j>.

So in this sense, the basis chosen does not matter in the overall 
description. But once we take environmental decoherence into account, 
only one basis will be stable, say the |a_i> basis, and if we describe 
things in the |b_j> basis, those basis states are immediately decohered 
into the corresponding |a_i> states. Consequently, any observer will 
only ever see results, or be located in branches (worlds), corresponding 
the the stable decohered base. Describing things in terms of another 
base doesn't change the reality, just as describing the orbit of the 
Moon in terms of a coordinate system based on Jupiter doesn't actually 
change the orbit of the Moon, it just makes the description a lot more 
complicated. However, in the absence of decoherence to a preferred 
stable basis, the results in the }a_i> and }b_j> bases are different.





Or else experiments would not have definite results when described in 
the laboratory from the 1p perspective.


I don’t see why.


Without decoherence, measurements in the |b_j> basis are superpositions 
of the |a_i> states, and by construction, only the |a_i> states are 
stable under decoherence, corresponding to definite results.




Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- which is, 
I agree, independent of the basi

Re: Primary matter

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Bruno,

Sorry for the delay, had a friend visiting.


> Ah! Let me try to answer.Keep in mind that I assume elementary arithmetic and 
> thus computations, etc.
> (I am not sure I need YD here, but it can help).
>
>
>>
>> - Why does consciousness even exist?
>
> Consciousness is somehow the doubt between consistency and truth (<>p v p).
>
> All universal number self introspecting meet this, and it is felt as 
> immediately obvious, and thus true, and undoubtable, yet non rationally 
> justifiable, and even non definable.

I follow your reasoning, from one of your recent articles. This leaves
me dissatisfied, but if I try to verbalize this dissatisfaction I feel
stuck in a loop. Perhaps this illustrates your point.

> It goes from the rough dissociated universal consciousness of Q to the 
> elaborate self-consciousness of PA or ZF, or us.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Darwinism does not seem to require it.
>
> It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it 
> let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more 
> efficacious machine, with respect to its most probable history.
> So, consciousness brings a self-speedable ability, which is quite handy for 
> self-moving being living in between a prey and a predator.

I'm not convinced. Consider a simple computer simulation where agents
are controlled by evolving rules. Agents can eat blue or red pills.
90% of the time blue pills give them energy and red pills cause
damage. 10% of the time the opposite happens. It is not possible to
know before eating a pill. Let's say the rule system evolves to make
the agents always eat blue pills and never red pills. Most of the time
this helps the agents, precisely because it assumes the most probable
histories. This is a simplified version of the sort of "decisions"
that evolution makes, and I would say that it is reasonable to assume
that our own evolutionary story consists of the accumulation of a
great number of such decisions. I still don't see how consciousness
makes a difference in such a mechanism.


>> - What is the relationship between consciousness and matter?
>
> The first is true, the second is consistent.

Ok. It's hard to disagree.

> (And I hope that the first is first person and the second is first person 
> plural, but that is exactly what Everett or QM confirms, but is still unclear 
> in arithmetic.
>
>
>
>
>> - Is there a reality that is external to conscious perception?
>
>
> The arithmetical reality, from which conscious perception build up the 
> histories. Some having long and deep reason above the substitution level, as, 
> by the delay invariance in the first person perspective, below our 
> substitution level, we have only a statistics on many histories, obeying some 
> quantum (like) logic. The apparent primary physical reality is really a sum 
> on all “fictions”.
>
> As long as nature continue to verify this, I think that explain a lot. Note 
> that the soul ([]p & p) is not a machine, in its own perspective. Only in God 
> eyes, but even that is an open question for the completed quantified theory 
> of the soul, where evidences exist that even God is limited to that respect, 
> which might explain why even God cannot predict to you, where you will feel 
> after a duplication.

My intuitive understanding of FPI is that both branches occur, they
are both equally real and both are experienced in the first person,
but from within one branch one cannot perceive the other, so the
indeterminacy is, in a sense, an illusion created by the limitations
of our own awareness -- the same limitations, of course, that make the
human experience possible.

Cheers,
Telmo.

> Please, demolish me now. What do I miss? (Of course, I will be unable to 
> explain where the numbers comes from, but this, up to recursive equivalence, 
> the universal machine (Löbian like PA) can already explain to be not 
> explainable).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> My view is scientifically speaking we never know anything "fundamental" and
>>> the search for it is like the hunting of the snark.  We seek theories with
>>> more scope and more accuracy, but being "more fundamental" doesn't entail
>>> that something is most fundamental.   Mystics like Bruno postulate something
>>> and then build structures on it which, by some (often small) agreement with
>>> experience, PROVE their postulates.  But as Feynman used to point out, this
>>> is Greek mathematics.  Science is like Persian mathematics in which the
>>> mathematician seeks to identify all the possible axiom sets that entail the
>>> observations.
>>
>> I tend to agree that scientifically we never know anything
>> fundamental. I do believe that it is possible to use reason to acquire
>> knowledge by means that are not the scientific method. I am certain
>> that I possess knowledge that was not acquired by scientific means,
>> for example I know how it feels to be me. Even if my metaphysical
>> obsessions are a fool's errand, I do think it is val

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 11:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>
 
 On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 11:11:09 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
 From: < <>agrays...@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
 
 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.
>> 
>> That paper by Zeh is very good on Everett, including his chapter 6 on 
>> Non-locality.
> 
> I was very sorry to hear recently that Zeh died a month or so ago. He was a 
> seminal thinker who made important contributions to Quantum Foundations and 
> the theory of time.

I am sad to hear this. Rest in Peace Zeh. 

Thanks for telling me Bruce,

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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:40:13 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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* 
>
>
>
> That is why I prefer Bohm’s version of the cat, where the cat alive/dead 
> state is corrupted with the up/down state of some particles. It ease the 
> mind by showing that the time is not an issue. If you can completely 
> isolate the cat from the environment (which is technically impossible), you 
> can maintain the cat in the dead + alive superposition state as long as you 
> want. If you isolate successfully the entire laboratory including you, 
> Then, someone else can resurrect the cat, relatively to himself, despite 
> you saw it dead. 
>
> The reason why we cannot do this in principle, is that we cannot isolate 
> the cat, and if the cat, when the cat is dead+alive, interact with some 
> particles in the environment, you can no mare factorize the cat state, 
> without tracking that particles.
>
> I don’t think it make sense to confine the superposition in the 
> microscopic domain, nor in the short-time domain. If the SWE is correct, 
> the superposition never disappear, unless a collapse assumption is made, 
> but then it cannot be described by QM. Only by QM + exception rules for the 
> observer or the measuring apparatus, but there are no evidences for that.
>
> Bruno
>

*See my solution to the S Cat on the other thread.  Since the cat can never 
be isolated, it can never be in a superposition, which generates the 
paradox. And since coherence can never occur, no need to apply 
decoherence!  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 11 Jun 2018, at 08:56, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> [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 

Thanks. I learn English on this list!

B.



> 
> -- 
> 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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 08:50, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 07:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 


That is why I prefer Bohm’s version of the cat, where the cat alive/dead state 
is corrupted with the up/down state of some particles. It ease the mind by 
showing that the time is not an issue. If you can completely isolate the cat 
from the environment (which is technically impossible), you can maintain the 
cat in the dead + alive superposition state as long as you want. If you isolate 
successfully the entire laboratory including you, Then, someone else can 
resurrect the cat, relatively to himself, despite you saw it dead. 

The reason why we cannot do this in principle, is that we cannot isolate the 
cat, and if the cat, when the cat is dead+alive, interact with some particles 
in the environment, you can no mare factorize the cat state, without tracking 
that particles.

I don’t think it make sense to confine the superposition in the microscopic 
domain, nor in the short-time domain. If the SWE is correct, the superposition 
never disappear, unless a collapse assumption is made, but then it cannot be 
described by QM. Only by QM + exception rules for the observer or the measuring 
apparatus, but there are no evidences for that.

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: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:37, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>>> On 8 Jun 2018, at 14:55, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhkell...@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.

?

I disagree. The finding can depend on what the observer decide to measure, 
which is akin to choosing a base, but the couple “observer + that chosen base” 
can be studied in any base, and the same result will described in the memories 
of the observer. I will search Everett proofs of this, as he is the one who 
convinced me on this.



> Or else experiments would not have definite results when described in the 
> laboratory from the 1p perspective.

I don’t see why.



> Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- which is, I 
> agree, independent of the basis

OK. At least we agree on that.


> in which it is described -- the view of any observer embedded in the 
> multiverse is totally basis-dependent.

Only in the sense that the biological brain has evolved through decoherence 
with respect to some base, but as you say, that process lead to the same result 
from the 1p perspective of those who have chosen the base, or have the base 
imposed through decoherence and evolution, say.
If not then QM would be inconsistent, and had to different laws of phys

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jun 2018, at 18:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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

An absurdity is just something we are not used to. It shocks prejudices, or 
common sense, which are usually cultural or based on some habit of thought.

A fallacy is something wrong. It is an invalid reasoning, leading to informal 
contradiction.





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

OK.



> 
> [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 
> .

-- 
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: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


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.


That paper by Zeh is very good on Everett, including his chapter 6 on 
Non-locality.


I was very sorry to hear recently that Zeh died a month or so ago. He 
was a seminal thinker who made important contributions to Quantum 
Foundations and the theory of time.


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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 01:53, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes. Now, it it seems accepted completely for Schroedinger, which is rarely 
written Schrödinger. But Gödel and Löb are almost invariably written with the 
umlaut, and never with the “e”. So I guess it is also a question of habit.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
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 11 Jun 2018, at 01:56, 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.

The prize was actually for the thesis, which should have been published, but 
they ask me to write the story of the thesis, to denounce the bullying in 
academies, which I did. The jury of the prize, led by Edgar Morin, knew that 
the thesis was written under very peculiar circumstances. But the prize 
disappeared, and I guess “academies” still protect themselves more 
efficaciously than the Church or Hollywood. 



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

I know that they differ, but still don’t know which one is which. So I tend to 
use price and prize randomly if I have no help from the context. I confess, and 
apologise. 

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 03:41, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> 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.

That paper by Zeh is very good on Everett, including his chapter 6 on 
Non-locality. 

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 11 Jun 2018, at 03:56, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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”?


?

I think this has ben explained many times, and that the duplication thought 
experiment illustrates so well, like also the non feeling of the split in 
Everett.

With mechanism we can duplicate you, in W and M, say. For an external observer 
who accept mechanism, there is a you conscious in W and there is a you 
conscious in M. In that sense (the 3-1 sense) your soul has been duplicated 
relatively to the external observer. But let us ask both the you in M and the 
you in W: both confirms that from their point of view, they have not felt any 
duplication, and the other copy is no more attached to their personal 
experience. It is a doppelgänger. They might feel intimate with 
theirdippelganger in some intellectual way, but without magic or telepathy, 
despite they re both the “H-guy”, they have become independent person, and at 
no moment do they have a FIRST PERSON experience of a split. Their soul has 
been maintained private and integral: no soul duplication in the soul’s first 
personal view.






>  
> ​>>​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.  

See above, but that has been explained already many time, and you are using it 
implicitly when you say that the observer does not feel the split, or the 
differentiation, in Everett measurement theory.



> 
> ​>​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.​


? (You made  an obvious category error, or just a grammar error). Mechanism is 
a principle, a doctrine. That does not belong to the category of things capable 
to do something. It only makes people able to do something.




>  
> ​>>​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.


Ok, what is your algorithm in Helsinki? If you agree that after the 
duplication, the W-person and the M-person  become different people, but still, 
by mechanism, keeping they H-people identity, how the H-person, when still in 
Helsinki could predict who he will feel to be? If that is 100% predictable, 
just give the method of prediction.



> ​ 
> 
> ​>>​​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,


You ignore the work of Theaetetus, and apparently even Diophantus, who founded 
Algebra, and is responsible for many findings there. It is weird. Fermat knew 
only Diophantus. The rebirth of mathematics comes from the translation of greek 
mathematics, etc.




> and in physics astronomy and biology they were even more ignorant than in 
> mathematics.

Eratosthene knew that the earth was spheric, and has measured its diameter. 
Yes, that will be forgotten, but has help for the coming back. 




> So why would anybody working on modern scientific problems be interested in 
> what they ancient Greeks had to say about anything?

Because in theology, they were rationalist and formulate the problem 
scientifically. So, they are still in advance. We have lost the track due to 
the use of violence, terror and other argument-per-authority. Then, computer 
science shows that they were very close to the scientific and mathematical 
theology, discovered by Gödel, Löb and made complete at the propositional level 
by Solovay. Again I use theology in the original sense, which is almost the 
opposite sense than the one used by any religious institution, which prevent 
the research instead of promoting it, for special private interest.

Bruno





>  
> 
> 
> 
> ​​

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 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. AGT
>

*The simplest argument is that macro objects (other than the precious few 
exceptions previously noted, such as Buckyballs) have no well defined 
deBroglie wave lengths. Hence, they cannot participate in a superposition 
of states which inherently implies interference among its components. A 
macro object has a huge set of individual entanglements, each with its own 
well defined deBroglie wave length, but the net interference among them 
statistically washes out to zero. We can go further. A macro object, 
virtually by definition, can NEVER be isolated from its environment. Thus, 
it can NEVER manifest a well defined wave length to make a superposition 
possible. It's NOT the case that a macro object can participate in a 
superposition for even a very short time and then decohere. This is where 
Schroedinger went wrong. He assumed a non existent superposition of states, 
which if existent would imply the cat must be alive and dead 
simultaneously, even if for a very short duration if decoherence theory is 
applied. But decoherence theory posits a solution for a non existent 
problem. It assumes that a superposed state can exist for a macro object 
for an exceedingly short time until it decoheres. However, as is the case 
for Scroedinger's cat or any macro object, it can NEVER be ISOLATED from 
its environment, which is the necessary condition for positing a 
superposition. Thus, decoherence theory need not be applied; indeed, should 
not be applied. And if it isn't generally applied for macro entities, then 
the wf cannot imply other worlds.  CMIIAW. 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 ?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 01:44, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> 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.

Right. Except for Lao-Ze, and a bit of Plato and Plotinus, it is only thanks to 
computer science that I realise those people where close to the mark.

If mechanism is true, that is hardly a coincidence. Mechanism, or even just the 
self-reference theory, explains all what a machine can discover when reasoning 
about itself without prejudice (except classical logic, which is something 
discovered by Aristotle). So, it would be astonishing that the humans reasoning 
about themselves would not have been close to the machine. That would have an 
indication that mechanism is wrong. But I did not expect at all that Plotinus, 
and perhaps even more so Moderatus of Gades, would that close.

Cheers!

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
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 10 Jun 2018, at 19:25, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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,


We agree on this. I have not read one book in (rational) theology which contest 
this, even when written by Christian. The big-Bang theory was developed by 
l’abbé Lemaitre, who was both christian theologian and cosmologist. That is why 
I suggest you to read the text of the rationalist theologian, and not the 
popular religion which have been imposed by terror and violence as it is 
happens when theology is withdrawn from science to political manipulation tool 
(lie a part of Health politics today, or genetics in the USSR, …).



>  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. 

By theology, I have been ultra-clear that I talk only about the rationalist. 
None ever believed any literal account of any “sacred texts”, on the contrary, 
they foresaw all the problem which can happen if we abandon reason in the 
domain. 




> 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.  


Modern physics is not theology, obviously. But physics, like mathematics and 
mathematical logic are born from rational theology.  They they have separated, 
even more so in the context where theology has been separated from science.



> 
> ​>>​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.


That was a typo. I meant “…theology FROM science”. We cannot make that 
separation without making science, or a part of it, into a theology. That is 
why some people believes that “materialism” sides with science, where any 
serious scientists knowing a bit in the domain knows that there has never been 
any empirical evidence for primary matter. Not one. Is is a simplifying 
hypothesis, like “the earth is flat” is a simplifying hypothesis working well 
for architect, but problematic for airline and astronautics.




> 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.​“

That has been proved, and the systematic childish “debunking” of step 3 assures 
everybody of your lack or rationality in the cognitive science or philosophy of 
mind (or rational theology in the original sense of those who have begun the 
investigations.



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


Like your constant negative tone and ad hominem sliding illustrates you have 
prejudices, on my person apparently. 


> 
> ​> ​Fundamental science and religion have always been the same thing​.​
> 
> So the pope is a scientist as was Osama bin Laden,


Again, you come back to your belief that the theology of the institionalized 
religion, which in occident has been persecuted for centuries, are the right 
theologian. You criticises the absurdity of religion, but by throwing the baby 
(rational theology) with the water (the fake theology imposed for political 
purpose), you help the fake and prevent the search of truth. That is why I say 
that the non-agnostic atheists (who share with the christian the religious 
belief in primary matter and who share the exclusively christian notion of God) 
are ally against the return of science and reason in the field. 

Bruno





> 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