Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:17:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:24:26 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:

  
 On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 *IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a 
 coherent argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise 
 the 
 level of discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate 
 result 
 when the system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new 
 here. 
 Key question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
 SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  *


 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a 
 or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom 
 spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or 
 a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP. 
  Any 
 particular  orientation can be *written* as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  

>>>
>>> *When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in 
>>> physics, you need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause 
>>> confusion and caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent 
>>> posts, 
>>> you seem to be saying that in an SG spin experiment where the 
>>> measurement 
>>> base is UP/DN, the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed 
>>> LEFT/RIGHT 
>>> state which is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure 
>>> spin?), 
>>> and that the LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent 
>>> eigenvalue after UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does 
>>> one 
>>> get the system to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is 
>>> the 
>>> operator for which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the 
>>> value of the persistent eigenvalue?*
>>>
>>> *Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state 
>>> persists -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the 
>>> spin 
>>> is measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that 
>>> state 
>>> can be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense 
>>> that we can now be certain that the system is physically and 
>>> simultaneously 
>>> in the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). *
>>>
>>> *HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the 
>>> gaps in your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I 
>>> now 
>>> must "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT 
>>> unique. 
>>> Thus, since there are finitely many or uncountable many such 
>>> representations, and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your 
>>> argument for the physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I 
>>> mean, I 
>>> could write the superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), 
>>> or 
>>> in many other bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that 
>>> the 
>>> system is physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis 
>>> vectors.*
>>>
>>> *AG*
>>>
>>
>> *I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT 
>> he doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
>> non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
>> physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
>> unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions 
>> of 
>> what QM is 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Jul 2018, at 04:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 9:24:26 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>  
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
 
 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
 Any particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  
 
 When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
 need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
 caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
 saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
 the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
 is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
 LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
 UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
 to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
 which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
 persistent eigenvalue?
 
 Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
 -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
 measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
 be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that 
 we can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in 
 the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
 
 HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
 your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
 "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
 since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, 
 and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the 
 physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
 superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
 bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
 physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
 
 AG
 
 I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
 doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
 non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
 physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
 unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
 what QM is telling us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
>>> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>> 
>>> I am not trying to explain the interference.
>> 
>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
>> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
>> physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Jul 2018, at 23:24, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 4:39:30 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Jul 2018, at 05:02, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:00:47 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>  
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:00:08 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:08, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 8:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:55, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:16:24 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 
 
 On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:42:44 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 7/10/2018 3:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> IIRC, the above quote is also in the Wiki article. It's not a coherent 
> argument; not even an argument but an ASSERTION. Let's raise the level of 
> discourse. It says we always get a or b, no intermediate result when the 
> system is in a superposition of states A and B.. Nothing new here. Key 
> question: why does this imply the system is in states A and B 
> SIMULTANEOUSLY before the measurement? AG  
 
 Because, in theory and in some cases in practice, there is a direct 
 measurement of the superposition state, call it C, such that you can 
 directly measure C and always get c, but when you have measured and 
 confirmed the system is in state c and then you measure A/B you get a or b 
 at random.   The easiest example is SG measurements of sliver atom spin 
 orientation where spin UP can be measured left/right and get a LEFT or a 
 RIGHT at random, but it can be measured up/down and you always get UP.  
 Any particular  orientation can be written as a superposition of two 
 orthogonal states.  
 
 When you're trying to explain esoteric issues to a moron in physics, you 
 need to be more explicit. These are the issues that cause confusion and 
 caused me to fail to "get it". After some subsequent posts, you seem to be 
 saying that in an SG spin experiment where the measurement base is UP/DN, 
 the system being measured is ALSO in a superposed LEFT/RIGHT state which 
 is also measured (by an SG device designed to measure spin?), and that the 
 LEFT/RIGHT superposed state persists with some persistent eigenvalue after 
 UP/DN is measured. It's murky for us morons.  How does one get the system 
 to be measured in a superposition of RIGHT/LEFT; what is the operator for 
 which that superposition is an eigenstate, and what is the value of the 
 persistent eigenvalue?
 
 Furthermore, you finally assert that since the RIGHT/LEFT state persists 
 -- meaning that particle is in some DEFINITE state after the spin is 
 measured -- and since (as you finally, finally assert) that that state can 
 be written as a superposition of UP/DN, all is well -- in the sense that 
 we can now be certain that the system is physically and simultaneously in 
 the UP and DN states (which I am claiming is a fallacy). 
 
 HOWEVER, assuming that I understand your argument after filing the gaps in 
 your presentation (and pointing to some unanswered issues), I now must 
 "rant" again that the UP/DN superposed representation is NOT unique. Thus, 
 since there are finitely many or uncountable many such representations, 
 and since (as per LC) QM has no preferred basis, your argument for the 
 physical simultaneity of UP and DN states fails. I mean, I could write the 
 superposed states in the basis (UP + DN) and (UP - DN), or in many other 
 bases. Absent uniqueness of bases, one cannot assert that the system is 
 physically and simultaneously in any particular pair of basis vectors.
 
 AG
 
 I've been looking over your references to Peres. CMIIAW, but AFAICT he 
 doesn't deal with the issue I have been "ranting" about; namely, the 
 non-uniqueness of bases, implying IMO that the concept of simultaneous 
 physical states of the components of a superposition is an additional, 
 unsupported assumption of QM which leads to some popular misconceptions of 
 what QM is telling us.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then you need to find a new explanation of the interference that occurs in 
>>> basically all quantum experiments, like the two slits, the statistics of 
>>> results with Stern-Gerlach spin measuring apparatus, etc.
>>> 
>>> I am not trying to explain the interference.
>> 
>> You should. That is the whole problem. How can we get interference if the 
>> wave describes only our knowledge state. The reason why we consider the wave 
>> physically real is that the wave interfere, even the wave associate to a 
>> single particle. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Rather I am pointing out an unnecessary 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Jul 2018, at 03:00, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>>​the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that we didn’t 
> even suspect there were other ways until a century ago.
> 
> ​>​Either your p-adic system is Turing universal, and then you can take it as 
> the primary theory, or it is not.
> 
> Machines can be Turing complete but no number system


Machine are said Turing Universal. “Turing complete” is the wording used when 
we talk about theories. And it is proved in all textbook in theoretical 
computer science that very elementary arithmetic is Turing complete. 




> can be because the can't DO anything.When mathematicians say things like 
> "Conway's Game Of Life  is Turing complete" what they mean is that a machine 
> can be built using Conway's principles in 2 dimensions that is functionally 
> equivalent to Turing's one dimensional machine that uses a paper tape, and 
> both are capable of calculating anything that can be calculated.
>  
> ​> ​Theology, including physics, is ​[]​
> 
> I've gotten to the point that whenever I see that imbecilic word I stop 
> reading and go to the next paragraph.


OK I do the same.

Bruno



> 
> 
> ​>>​So on a football field if the 2 yard line was closer to the 28814 yard 
> line than the 2 yard line was to the 3 yard line the game would not in anyway 
> be changed? I don’t think so, in the physical world its harder to go from 2 
> to 28814 than 2 to 3, but in Plato’s heaven of pure numbers one is as easy as 
> another. And that’s why p-adic numbers are not taught in the second grade.
> 
> ​>​I was talking of non standard theory of the natural number.
> 
> The natural numbers are well named, they were the first class of numbers that 
> humans invented because the conform naturally to the way we view the physical 
> words, in particular they conform with our intuitive ideas about distance, 
> but with p-adic numbers we know there are an infinite number of ways of 
> defining distance that are very far from intuitive but are just as logically 
> self consistent. Wiles used them in his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem but we 
> don't teach p-adic numbers much in school because they are of little use in 
> science or engineering or economics or anything else in our physical world. 
> 
> 
>> ​>>​>>​​You can not point to one single example of a non-physical 
>> computation. Not one.
> 
>  
>>  ​>​​>>​Here is one:
>> s(0) +s(0)
>> s(s(0) + 0)
>> s(s(0))
>> Here is another one:
>> SB(S(K(SM))K)AB
>> Bx((S(K(SM)K)A)B
>> A(S(K(SM))KAB)
>> A(K(SM)A(KA)B)
>> A(SM(KA)B)
>> A(MB)(KAB)
>> A(BBA)
>> :
>> ​>>​I just asked both of your examples of ASCII sequences to add 1+1 but I 
>> haven't heard even a incorrect answer from either, so far all I hear is a 
>> deafening silence but if I ever do hear anything from  either of them I 
>> shall inform Intel immediately. 
> 
> ​>​Too late. Intel exist because they were aware of this.
> 
> What Intel was aware of it that the squiggles you so proudly typed above 
> world not be finished calculating 1+1 even if it started trying to do so 13.8 
> billion years ago at the instant of the Big Bang. But Intel was also aware 
> that unlike your ASCII characters the physical element Silicon could make 
> calculations and that's why they're so interested in it. 
> 
> ​>>​​So you concede that primary or not matter is needed to think. ​
> 
> ​>​For humans,
> 
> ​So matter can do something that numbers can't, namely matter can DO things 
> and and change, but numbers can do neither.
>  
> ​>>​I don't know or care what the guy expects to happen
>  
> ​>​But that is the question we were studying.
> 
> ​It sure as hell isn't the question I was studying!!! What the man EXPECTS  
> to happen has precisely zero philosophical significance.What actually DOES 
> happen has profound philosophical significance.
> 
>> ​>​>>​ ​and so he knows that once duplicated, the two copies will feel to be 
>> unique,
>> 
>> ​>>​NO!!
> ​>​Ah! I knew you were caring. But you contradict yourself.
> 
> BULLSHIT.  I said from day one of this endless debate that if 2 brains are 
> physically identical there is only one mind between them and it is only when 
> they see different things, like different cites, do they differentiate.
>  
> ​>​we have agreed that both are fully aware of their common identity with the 
> H-guy.
> 
> Yes, and I thought we also agreed that doesn't mean they are each other if 
> they have seen different thing since the Helsinki days.
>   
> ​> ​I am not physically identical with my “yesterday” self either.
> 
> ​But you remember being your yesterday self.​ 
>  
> ​>​the question is about what they expect to write in their personal 
> diary/memory
> 
> Who knows, they could expect to see Santa Claus Workshop for all I know or 
> care. What matters is what they do end up seeing not what they expect to see.
> 
>  
> ​>>​The truth or falsehood of