Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2018 3:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the
superposition of states is wrong. Although I have asked
several times, no one here seems able to offer a plausible
justification for interpreting that a system in a
superposition of states, is physically in all states of the
superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured.
If we go back to those little pointing things, you will see
there exists an infinite uncountable set of basis vectors
for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum
systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also
infinitely many bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not
justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but
that did not have much meaning (operationally, physically).

Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state,
has a ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which
we have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure;
so we say it is in a superposition, meaning a superposition
of the eigenstates we're going to measure.  So it does not
have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.

Brent

*
*
*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed +
Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states
simultaneously? *


No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a
sense it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading
of 45deg you are on a definite heading. But you are simultaneously
traveling North and East.  And if someone was watching you with a
radar that could only output "moving north" or "moving east" it
would oscillate between the two and you might call that a
superposition of north and east motion.

Brent


*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of 
basis vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg 
direction. Thus, it makes no sense to single out a particular basis 
and claim it is _simultaneously_ in both. *


That's where you're wrong.  It makes perfect sense if that's the only 
basis you can measure in.  That's why I gave the hypothetical example of 
a radar that could only report motion as northward or eastward.  In some 
cases, like decayed our not-decayed, we don't have instruments to 
measure the superposition state.  In other cases like sliver atom spin 
we can measure up/down or left/right or along any other axis.


*ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent paradoxes in QM such 
as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which is decayed and 
undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a state to do 
a calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
superposition in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say 
you? AG*


I say use what's convenient for calculation.  Don't imagine your 
calculation is the reality.


Brent




*Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  +
(Decayed, Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's
the case, why would anyone think these states are in any way
paradoxical or contradictory? 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.


--
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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>>
>> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
>> states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems 
>> able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
>> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
>> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
>> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
>> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
>> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>>
>> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
>> have much meaning (operationally, physically).
>>
>> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
>> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>>
>> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>>
>>
>> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
>> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
>> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
>> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
> does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *
>
>
> No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense it 
> is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg you are 
> on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling North and 
> East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could only output 
> "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between the two and you 
> might call that a superposition of north and east motion.
>
> Brent
>

*I see. But as I have pointed out, there are uncountably many sets of basis 
vectors that result in the same vector along the 45 deg direction. Thus, it 
makes no sense to single out a particular basis and claim it is 
simultaneously in both. ISTM, this is the cause of many of the apparent 
paradoxes in QM such as Schroedinger's cat, or a radioactive source which 
is decayed and undecayed simultaneously. I have no objection using such a 
state to do a calculation, but I think it's an error to further interpret a 
superposition in terms of simultaneity of component states. What say you? 
AG*

>
> *Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + (Decayed, 
> Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would 
> anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? 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: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2018 11:27 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition
of states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one
here seems able to offer a plausible justification for
interpreting that a system in a superposition of states, is
physically in all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY
before the system is measured. If we go back to those little
pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite
uncountable set of basis vectors for any vector in that linear
vector space. For quantum systems, there is no unique basis, and
in many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, the
interpretation is not justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did
not have much meaning (operationally, physically).

Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a
***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?

No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we
have no measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say
it is in a superposition, meaning a superposition of the
eigenstates we're going to measure.  So it does not have one of
the eigenvalues of our measurement.

Brent

*
*
*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + 
Undecayed, does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? *


No, it is in a state that consists of Decayed+Undecayed.  So in a sense 
it is in both simulatnaeously.  If you are sailing a heading of 45deg 
you are on a definite heading.  But you are simultaneously traveling 
North and East.  And if someone was watching you with a radar that could 
only output "moving north" or "moving east" it would oscillate between 
the two and you might call that a superposition of north and east motion.


Brent

*Same for cat, Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + 
(Decayed, Dead) ) for Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the 
case, why would anyone think these states are in any way paradoxical 
or contradictory? 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: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrays...@gmail.com  ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus 
> occurs in that time before decoherence.
>
>
> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>
>
> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
> geometry of your detectors.
>
> LC
>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of 
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. * 
>
>
> It is not for short time, it is forever.
>
>
> *No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
> the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
> short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to 
> decohere long before it is associated with any experiment. AG*
>  
>
> You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the 
> Copenhagen theory suggest.
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> *No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to 
> offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a 
> superposition of states, is physically in all states of the superposition 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we go back to those little 
> pointing things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of 
> basis vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum 
> systems, there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many 
> bases, So IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG* 
>
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 
> much meaning (operationally, physically).
>
> Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
> ***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?
>
> No - in general - we cannot say that.
>
>
> It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
> measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
> superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
> measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.
>
> Brent
>

*So for the radioactive source, the superposed state, Decayed + Undecayed, 
does NOT imply the system is in both states simultaneously? Same for cat, 
Alive + Dead? Same for ( (Undecayed, Alive)  + (Decayed, Dead) ) for 
Schroedinger's composite system? If that's the case, why would anyone think 
these states are in any way paradoxical or contradictory? 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: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:09:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Jul 2018, at 15:09, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of 
> Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can 
> halt or not. This is a form of the Berry paradox and similar "unnameable 
> number" results similar to Cantor diagonalization. Such a thing really does 
> not exist.
>
>
>
> Indeed. But I do not see the relevance here. It means only that we cannot 
> recognise a program from its behaviour in general, still less from its 
> code. But everyone knows who he is locally, and that is only what we need 
> to get the first person duplication when done (by definition/assumption) at 
> the right level. That explains the “many-world” internal interpretation in 
> arithmetic or Turing equivalent. 
>
> Bruno
>

This was in response to something Clark wrote. 

When it comes to interpretations I think Wittgenstein is advised with a 
paraphrased quote that which we can't speak we pass over in silence. I 
think it best to think according to quantum spectra with some "Gödel 
numbering" between quantum numbers and solutions to Diophantine 
equations. John Bell proved that any objective theory giving experimental 
predictions identical to those of quantum theory is necessarily nonlocal. 
Complete nonlocality would eventually encompass everything in the universe, 
including ourselves, giving rise to bizarre self-referential logical 
truths. The latter are not usually considered to be in the realm of 
physics. Experimental outcomes are never considered with respect to such 
self-referential loops. However, this is because as with ψ-epistemic 
interpretations the quantum and classical worlds are considered distinct. 
Heisenberg however showed there is a problem with understanding the cut 
between the two. This leads to Schödinger's cat problem. MWI is ψ-ontic, 
and in effect invokes nonlocal variables that are the other worlds. 
Nonlocality in ψ-ontic interpretations are instead of being a formal 
feature of QM as described topologically by quotient groups and spaces is 
rather laden down with hidden variables. These problems may be due to the 
fact we avoid looking at nonlocality in its complete glory, and that the 
measurement problem and related issues of quantum-classical dichotomy may 
be due to the fact an observer is really just a part of a quantum system 
observing itself.

The Davis, Matiyasevich, Putnam, Robinson (DMPR) theorem proves that the 
solutions for any general element of a Diophantine set is Turing halting, 
but that any other element may not be. This means the solutions to 
Diophantine equations are recursively enumerable, and there is a Gödel 
theorem aspect to this. Now if we have some scheme for Gödel numbering 
quantum eigenvalues gn(λ) → P(a, x_1, x_2, ..., x_n), for λ an eigenvalue 
with a code mapped to the solution of a Diophantine equation. 

The non-solutions may then be the emergence of classicality. Quantum 
physics does not predict chaotic behavior, and chaotic behavior is in 
principle an endless recursion of orbits and "filigree" that is recursively 
enumerable. This may then be a way to think about the relationship between 
quantum mechanics and the emergence of classical physics with einselection.

LC

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>
 ​>>​
 ​
 ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in
 a book and nobody ever will.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> * ​*
>>> *That contradicts all publication in the field.*
>>>
>>
>> ​>>​
>>> Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New
>>> Mexico or other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from
>>> the journal Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of
>>> Applied Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.
>>
>>
> *​>​You need to consult papers in mathematical logic journal. Obviously if
> “scientific” means physics, you will not find the papers I am mentioning,*
>
So you now admit that the experts who specialize in the study of physical
phenomena have, just as I said, "never seen a demonstration of a
non-physical calculation " . And that dear Bruno flatly contradicts your
statement "That contradicts all publication in the field ", the truth of
the matter is it does NOT contradict ANY of the publications in the field
of physical phenomena, except perhaps for the Roswell Flying Saucer
Journal.

> *​>​You would say that group theory assumes the existence of chalk and
> blackboard*.
>

​

Group theory can't assume anything but group theorists can, and yes they
assume the existence of chalk and blackboard that's why they use them, I
would not be surprised if you use them too from time to time.


> * ​>​I am not saying that a human does not need some energy to study
> mathematics.*
>

But why? If energy comes from pure numbers then why do experts in pure
numbers need energy even when they study pure numbers?

​>​
> * in this case I am alluding to an infinity of “correct” one.*
>

  ​
 The ways numbers can be manipulated is infinite but only one of those ways
is compatible with physical reality and we call that way arithmetic; it is
the only way that is correct, and unlike you I don't feel the need to use
any apologetic quotation marks.
​

> ​>>​
>> Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've
>> forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day
>> of class, he said a function is a machine,
>
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *I am not that old. The machines are enumerable, but the functions are
> not.*
>

​
A function can't exist unless a person or a machine is thinking about it,
so the number of existing functions is not only enumerable it is finite,
assuming by "existence" we mean there is a difference between "X " and "not
X".


> ​>​
> * like there are much more truth than proofs.*
>

And there are more incorrect proofs than correct ones, infinitely more in
fact.


​>>​
>> A function is instructions written in a very compact form
>
>
> *​>​No. That is a program, or machine. Most functions cannot be so
> compactly represented.*
>

​If you don't have a notation that allows you to represent a function in a
finite number of symbols then neither a person nor a machine can think
about it then it does not exist except in Plato's heaven, and there is no
detectable difference between Plato's heaven existing and Plato's heaven
not existing so, just like the luminiferous aether of old, it is useless
metaphysical baggage.

​> *​*
> *By itself, nothing can do anything.*
>

​
Matter doesn't need anything to do stuff except the laws of physics, but
the laws of numbers are not enough to enable numbers to do anything.


> *​>​in the arithmetical reality we can define what “doing things” can
> mean. That is the whole point.*
>

I know, definitions have always been your whole point, but definitions are
just a linguistic convention and can't create anything.

> ​>>​
>> physics can make calculations with NAND and NOR circuits made from
>> mechanical rods ratchets and gears or vacuum tubes or transistors or
>> microchips or some other arrangement of matter that obeys the laws of
>> physics, such as the neurons in the bone box on your shoulders.
>>
>> ​> *​*
> *Assuming physicalism,*
>

No, assuming the scientific method and the evidence before your eyes
whenever you're looking at a computer screen as you're doing at this very
instant.


> ​> *​*
> *Matter produce consciousness?*
>

​Yes.​



> * ​> ​How?*
>

​I don't know how and never claimed I did. But I do claim there is
incontrovertible evidence that matter DOES produce consciousness. Whenever
your brain changes your consciousness changes and whenever your
consciousness changes your brain changes. Matter doesn't care if Human
Beings understands how it pulls off this trick or not, it will keep doing
it regardless.

​>>​
>> Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is
>> a connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than
>> consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird.
>
>

​>​
> *That is my point.*
>

That's it? That's all you've got? The only evidence non-computability is
connected to cons

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of
 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus
 occurs in that time before decoherence.

>>>
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
>>>
>>
>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical
>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these
>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons
>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored
>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such
>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have
>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of
>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are
>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on
>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into
>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the
>> geometry of your detectors.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of
> states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead
> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed
> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those
> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of
> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in
> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a
> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a
> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to
> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence
> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of
> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence
> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though,
> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These
> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of
> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of
> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of
> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this
> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of
> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to
> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to
> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI,
> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to
> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes
> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. ]*
>

>
I've been watching this lecture series on that same question, and found it
to be good:

http://www.quiprocone.org/Protected/DD_lectures.htm

Jason

-- 
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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 23:28, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>>​​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a 
> book and nobody ever will.
> 
> ​> ​That contradicts all publication in the field.
> 
> Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico or 
> other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from the journal 
> Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of Applied 
> Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.

You need to consult papers in mathematical logic journal. Obviously if 
“scientific” means physics, you will not find the papers I am mentioning, but 
that means you beg the question, and adopt the metaphysical option of 
physicalism.






> ​
> > You seem to never have open any book nor paper in that subject
> 
> That's because opening a book requires energy as does performing 
> calculations, and pure numbers are unable to give me any energy so I am 
> unable to open a book much less perform a calculation. 
> 
> 

You confuse theoretical levels. You would say that group theory assumes the 
existence of chalk and blackboard. I begin to think you miss the notion of 
theory. What I said is that the notion and existence of computation does not 
presuppose anything physical. I am not saying that a human does not need some 
energy to study mathematics. The point will be that if mechanism is true, that 
energy is not a fundamental reality but an appearance emerging from arithmetic.






>  ​> ​the whole point will be that there is nothing unique concerning any 
> computations.​ ​All are implemented in infinitely many ways in Arithmetic.
> 
> ​Yes and out of those infinitely many ways of doing arithmetic all but one of 
> them is incorrect,

No, in this case I am alluding to an infinity of “correct” one.




> that is to say only one of those ways is compatible with physical reality

No, they all are.



> and that is the one the sheep herder who invented arithmetic many thousands 
> of years ago decided to use because it was the only one that helped him with 
> his job.
> 
> Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've 
> forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day of 
> class, he said a function is a machine,


I am not that old. The machines are enumerable, but the functions are not. 
There are much more functions than machine, like there are much more truth than 
proofs.





> you put something into it and if you perform the calculations it says to 
> perform something different will come out. A function is instructions written 
> in a very compact form

No. That is a program, or machine. Most functions cannot be so compactly 
represented.




> but by itself it can't do anything.


By itself, nothing can do anything. Doing is relational. But in the 
arithmetical reality we can define what “doing things” can mean. That is the 
whole point. I have exemplified this in some recent post, but you have not 
commented it.




> A cake recipe is not a cake nor can it make a cake without the help of a 
> baker, a baker that is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.  

Straw man.


> 
> ​>​but physics can.
> 
> Really?
> 
> ​Yes really.​
>  
> ​> ​How?
> 
> ​With NAND and NOR circuits made from mechanical rods ratchets and gears or 
> vacuum tubes or transistors or microchips or some other arrangement of matter 
> that obeys the laws of physics, such as the neurons in the bone box on your 
> shoulders.   


Assuming physicalism, but then you eliminate (again) first persons and 
consciousness, or you need to add an identity link which is shown not working 
with computationalism (nor with Everett QM).



>  
> ​>​If mechanism is true, I don’t see how that primary matter can influence 
> consciousness or create it
> 
> It does not make the slightest difference if you understand the connection 
> between matter and consciousness or not because it remains a experimental 
> FACT that when your brain changes your consciousness changes and when your 
> consciousness changes you brain changes. Matter doesn't care that you have 
> not figgured out how matter produces consciousness , matter does it does it 
> anyway. 


Matter produce consciousness? How? If you invoke Digital Mechanism, then 
arithmetic produces consciousness too, and if you think Matter is needed for 
consciousness, tell me its role, and what is it there that the arithmetical 
reality miss. 




>  
> ​>​without invoking some non Turing computable,​ ​and non FPI recoverable, 
> notions.
> 
> Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is a 
> connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than 
> consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird.

That is my point.



> 
> ​>​A book cannot make a computation, trivially, but a number,

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 10:57, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> The emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 10^{-22}seconds. 
>>> The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed nucleus occurs in that time 
>>> before decoherence.
>>> 
>>> Is that calculated / postulated if the radioactive source interacts with 
>>> its environment? Can't it be isolated for a longer duration? If so, what 
>>> does that imply about being in the pure states mentioned above? AG 
>>> 
>>> Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done usually with optical 
>>> and IR energy photons. The reason is that techniques exist for making these 
>>> sort of measurements and materials are such that one can pass photons 
>>> through beam splitters or hold photons in entanglements in mirrored 
>>> cavities and the rest. At higher energy up into the X-ray domain such 
>>> physics becomes very difficult. At intermediate energy where you have 
>>> nuclear physics of nucleons and mesons and further at higher energy of 
>>> elementary particles things become impossible. This is why in QFT there are 
>>> procedures for constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on 
>>> and in the light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into 
>>> phenomenology. Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the 
>>> geometry of your detectors.
>>> 
>>> LC
>>> 
>>> I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a superposition of states 
>>> when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and undecayed 
>>> simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of those 
>>> "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum of 
>>> other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components in 
>>> its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
>>> Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as a 
>>> natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led to 
>>> Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of decoherence 
>>> theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions because of 
>>> virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. Decoherence 
>>> doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, even though, 
>>> apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. These 
>>> considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum superposition of 
>>> states is just a calculational tool, and when the superposition consists of 
>>> orthogonal component states, it allows us to calculate the probabilities of 
>>> the measured system transitioning to the state of any component. In this 
>>> interpretation, essentially the CI, there remains the unsolved problem of 
>>> providing a mechanism for the transition from the SWE, to the collapse to 
>>> one of the eigenfunctions when the the measurement occurs. I prefer to 
>>> leave that as an unsolved problem, than accept the extravagance of the MWI, 
>>> or decoherence theory, which IMO doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to 
>>> above, but rather executes what amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes 
>>> exist for short times so can be viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG. 
>> 
>> It is not for short time, it is forever.
>> 
>> No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was the 
>> context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very short. 
>> I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere long 
>> before it is associated with any experiment. AG
>>  
>> You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is indeed what the 
>> Copenhagen theory suggest.
>> 
>> No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states is 
>> wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here seems able to offer 
>> a plausible justification for interpreting that a system in a superposition 
>> of states, is physically in all states of the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY 
>> before the system is measured. If we go back to those little pointing 
>> things, you will see there exists an infinite uncountable set of basis 
>> vectors for any vector in that linear vector space. For quantum systems, 
>> there is no unique basis, and in many cases also infinitely many bases, So 
>> IMO, the interpretation is not justified. AG 
> ***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not have 

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jul 2018, at 18:53, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Lawrence Crowell 
> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> ​> ​These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul 
> of Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can 
> halt or not.
> 
> Yes, Turing said you can never determine if every program will stop, but that 
> doesn’t mean you can’t determine if some programs will stop. And I think you 
> would agree not every string of ASCII characters is a question even if it has 
> a question mark at the end. If a question about tomorrow can't be answered 
> even in principle the day after tomorrow

But it can. You said it yourself. In W the guy write W in the diary, and if 
that was not predicted in the diary, he has to admit he was unable to predict 
what he is personally living right now, and the same for the other guy. 
You reasoning would entail the absence of any probabilities in QM-without 
collapse, which is correct for the 3p global prediction, but empirically false 
for all living entities obeying to the SWE. 

Bruno





> then the utterance made the day before yesterday was gibberish and the reason 
> it has no answer is the same as the reason a burp has no answer, neither was 
> a question.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jul 2018, at 18:30, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>​Both copies knows perfectly well how to answer them after.
> 
> ​And both answers I not only correctly predicted yesterday without the 
> slightest trace if indeterminacy I did so easily; I said the guy who would 
> see Moscow would answer "I see Moscow" and the guy who would see  Washington 
> would  answer  "I see Washington". OK that is not very profound I admit but 
> its your thought experiment not mine.


But so you have to agree that the guy in Moscow has to admit that he has not 
succeeded to predict in Helsinki yesterday  that very personal experience lived 
today, and accordingly the same for the guy in Washington, given that if their 
diary contains your (3p) symmetrical description, it cannot have worked for the 
FIRST PERSON prediction. You just proved my point.

Bruno




>  
> ​> ​You reiterates once more your intensional confusion
> 
> So says the man who does not even know the referent to a simple personal 
> pronoun VERY frequently used in his key thought experiment.  
> 
> 
> ​John K Clark​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> we can suspect, between fist person and third person. Repeating an argument 
> ad nauseam will not make it true.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ​>>​And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, 
>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged 
>> either way. 
>> 
>> ​>​That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in 
>> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals
>>  
>> Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless of 
>> if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do 
>> with any existing mathematics much less physics. 
>> 
>> ​John K Clark​
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jul 2018, at 15:09, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of 
> Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can 
> halt or not. This is a form of the Berry paradox and similar "unnameable 
> number" results similar to Cantor diagonalization. Such a thing really does 
> not exist.


Indeed. But I do not see the relevance here. It means only that we cannot 
recognise a program from its behaviour in general, still less from its code. 
But everyone knows who he is locally, and that is only what we need to get the 
first person duplication when done (by definition/assumption) at the right 
level. That explains the “many-world” internal interpretation in arithmetic or 
Turing equivalent. 

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 6:52:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 2 Jul 2018, at 20:46, John Clark > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> 
>> ​>​you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live 
>> after a self-duplication.
>> I have an algorithm that can detect gibberish and gibberish questions have 
>> no answer. The algorithm works this way, if even after the exparament is 
>> over its STILL impossible to say what the prediction was suposed to be about 
>> then the question about the future was gibberish.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Both copies knows perfectly well how to answer them after. You reiterates 
> once more your intensional confusion, we can suspect, between fist person and 
> third person. Repeating an argument ad nauseam will not make it true.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> ​>>​And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, 
>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged 
>> either way. 
>> 
>> ​>​That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in 
>> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals
>>  
>> Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless of 
>> if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do 
>> with any existing mathematics much less physics. 
>> 
>> ​John K Clark​
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-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 
> .

-- 
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.